Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 37 of 44 FirstFirst ... 27333435363738394041 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,110 of 1298

Thread: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread

  1. #1081
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,095
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    How was it deceptive?

    Did you read the two lines above the image?

    I specifically stated that EODAS was not an IRST in the traditional sense and gave the above screen cap of SniperXR (which EOTS is based on) as an example of what a IRST is capable of. In no way did I imply that the 36nm shot was from EODAS.
    Yeah, I've mixed the EOTS with the DAS because you call it EODAS which makes the whole mess even worse .

  2. #1082
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    EODAS = Sorry, old habit due to people confusing the F-35's DAS with the EF's DASS.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  3. #1083
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,149
    What range does EOTS work in ?
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  4. #1084
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    LM's Sniper XR is a "mid-wave" FLIR. Since EOTS is based on teh SniperXR, I would say it's the same.

    A mid-wave FLIR typically operates in the 3 to 5 μm range (1 μm is 1000 nm or .0001 cm).
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  5. #1085
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    How about real ferry range on internal fuel for the F-35 variants?!
    A ~2750 km or 1500 nm
    B ~2000 km or 1100 nm
    C ~3000 km or 1600 nm
    We keep in mind that the SH does not differ much from that in general. Be it the internal fuel-load, installed thrust, weight or size.
    Last edited by Sens; 31st March 2012 at 13:01.

  6. #1086
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,095
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    LM's Sniper XR is a "mid-wave" FLIR. Since EOTS is based on teh SniperXR, I would say it's the same.

    A mid-wave FLIR typically operates in the 3 to 5 μm range (1 μm is 1000 nm or .0001 cm).
    MWIR was obviously chosen because it is better suitable for long range high mag surveillance against high temperature objects (exhaust nozzles, rocket plumes).

  7. #1087
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    From what I have read, MWIR is also absorbed less by water vapor in the atmosphere.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #1088
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    594
    Midwave was originally chosen because it had better, more photo-quality resolution at range. I believe that LW is slightly better for atmospheric transmission, in theory, and some IRSTs* either stayed in LW or went dual-band. I think the LockMart IRST may still be LWIR but Selex Galileo has now gone MWIR-only. And all the unclass missile-defense work with airborne IR tracking has used standard Reaper MWIR hardware.

    * Real IRSTs. Not the "I'm not an IRST but I play one on TV" excuses on certain aircraft.

  9. #1089
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    958
    The US DoD recognises six ‘windows’ in the optical spectrum – bands in which atmospheric absorption is at a minimum:

    ultraviolet (UV)
    visible (VIS)
    near infrared (NIR)
    short-wave infrared (SWIR)
    mid-wave infrared (MWIR)
    long-wave infrared (LWIR)

    In practice, several of these bands are divided into sub-bands by regions of high absorption.

    There are three major high-absorption regions in SWIR (one fairly minor), one in MWIR, and one in LWIR.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  10. #1090
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    How about real ferry range on internal fuel for the F-35 variants?!
    A ~2750 km or 1500 nm
    B ~2000 km or 1100 nm
    C ~3000 km or 1600 nm
    We keep in mind that the SH does not differ much from that in general. Be it the internal fuel-load, installed thrust, weight or size.
    I would say it differs much.
    Thrust and weight are comparable, but not internal fuel. F-35C carries almost 9 tons, SH a little more than 6.5 tons. That's about the difference from 2 external 480 gal tanks plus associated drag.
    A clean F-35 surely outranges a clean F-18E by a wide margin.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  11. #1091
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    About the F-35 Wing load:

    Why does the F-35 have higher wing load vs both the Mig-29 and Su-27?

    Su-27 Wing loading: 371 kg/m² 76 lb/ft²
    Mig-29 Wing loading: 442 kg/m² 90.5 lb/ft²
    F-35 Wing loading: 446 kg/m² 91.4 lb/ft²

    The F-35 was designed to carry lots of weapons(weight) inside the boxy airframe for a starter, and not on its wing pylons..
    Wing loadings are only a small part of the picture, apart from what you have mentioned about weapons loadout etc, it once again does not take into account body lift, the actual airframe design/wing design, materials used etc.
    Last edited by aussienscale; 1st April 2012 at 10:15.

  12. #1092
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Breaking News:

    Canada to withdraw from F-35 programme. Will consider F-18F and F-15 variants as an alternative.

  13. #1093
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    Breaking News:

    Canada to withdraw from F-35 programme. Will consider F-18F and F-15 variants as an alternative.
    Refernce ? Link ? Official Source ?

  14. #1094
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
    Refernce ? Link ? Official Source ?
    Check calendar.

  15. #1095
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,792
    Quote Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
    Wing loadings are only a small part of the picture, apart from what you have mentioned about weapons loadout etc, it once again does not take into account body lift, the actual airframe design/wing design, materials used etc.
    Thats my point.
    Take the Mig-29 and Su-27. They are by no means heavy for theirs size and purpose. They have a wide body with blended wing/fuselage.
    Their body lift should be no less than F-35!

    Which brings us back the my Q. Why does it come with so high wing loading in the first place?

    What is the heaviest singel weapon/payload the F-35 can carry on inner wing station?
    The DT?
    Thanks

  16. #1096
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Thats my point.
    Take the Mig-29 and Su-27. They are by no means heavy for theirs size and purpose. They have a wide body with blended wing/fuselage.
    Their body lift should be no less than F-35!

    Which brings us back the my Q. Why does it come with so high wing loading in the first place?

    What is the heaviest singel weapon/payload the F-35 can carry on inner wing station?
    The DT?
    Its being designed for some pretty heavy loading.

  17. #1097
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    The shown option will not be used in a practical mission. But it gives an idea about the versatility of the F-35 and the way some stations can be used in none stealth missions.

  18. #1098
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,591
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    Breaking News:

    Canada to withdraw from F-35 programme. Will consider F-18F and F-15 variants as an alternative.
    I know someone that has a few spare Tranche 1 Typhoons...Aye, aye! Nudge, nudge! Wink, wink!*

    A few months, or weeks or even days, ago I'd say I'd be very surprised if Canada pulled out of the F-35 programme, today, after seeing how much this programme is costing, up to now $1.51 trillion and the aircraft is only 20% complete at this stage, I wouldn't be surprised if Canada sees sense and pulls out. I wouldn't be surprised if Japan drops their orders, too.

    I notice Lockheed Martin have quickly got shot of their "Affordable Fighter" saying. *Giggle*
    Last edited by EELightning; 1st April 2012 at 13:11.

  19. #1099
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,811
    Quote Originally Posted by EELightning View Post
    I'd be very surprised if Canada pulled out of the F-35 programme, today, after seeing how much this programme is costing, up to now $1.51 trillion and the aircraft is only 20% complete at this stage,
    It hasn't cost $1.51 trillion so far. That's an estimate of the total cost over its entire lifetime, including a few decades of operations, maintenance, future upgrades & everything else.

    It's cost a hell of a lot, but it's still in the low tens of billions of USD up to now.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  20. #1100
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,485
    The development of the F35 has cost more than the total programme cost of the Rafale. Talk about affordable
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  21. #1101
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    That's understandable considering:
    1. Three airframes/missions being developed
    2. Level of avionics integration involved
    3. New technologies in the area of RAM/RAS being developed
    4. Massive amount of software being developed (for both the aircraft and ground ops)
    5. The majority of the avionics dev is done (AESA, EOTS, EODAS, RwW,MADL, etc).
    6. The F-35 SDD program had 20 (IIRC) flying and non-flying fighters.
    7. The low numbers of Rafales actually ordered up to this point.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  22. #1102
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,485
    I said total programme cost = order for the 286 Rafales + through life support.

    And the Rafale actually has a carrier version

    STOVL version is useless anyway.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  23. #1103
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    I almost forgot, the F-35 SDD program culminates with Blk3. The Rafale basically went IOC with the F-35's Blk 1.5. The F-35 will not declare IOC until everything is done, not with just one or two features done.

    btw, Have a source on total Rafale program cost (in what year currency)?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  24. #1104
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    Its being designed for some pretty heavy loading.
    Does the F-35 has a IR missile integrated on the internal bay ?
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  25. #1105
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    That's understandable considering:
    5. The majority of the avionics dev is done (AESA, EOTS, EODAS, RwW,MADL, etc).
    .
    if development of avionics is done.will it not become obsolete by the time full scale production begins in 2019. around 2020 this thing will need further upgrades to deal with post 2020 SAM systems.

  26. #1106
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    Does the F-35 has a IR missile integrated on the internal bay ?
    Not till Blk4.

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    if development of avionics is done.will it not become obsolete by the time full scale production begins in 2019. around 2020 this thing will need further upgrades to deal with post 2020 SAM systems.
    Block upgrades (primarily software) are on track to happen every 2 years after IOC with hardware upgrades happening every 4 years.

    Since the latest hardware upgrade is TR2 (Tech Refresh 2) that is part of Blk2B, then that puts the next hardware upgrade at Blk4 which is in the 2017/2018 timeframe. The next hardware upgrade would then happen in the 2022/23 timeframe.

    Nothing precludes them from adding whatever weapon or pod to the F-35 in the meantime.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  27. #1107
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    It hasn't cost $1.51 trillion so far. That's an estimate of the total cost over its entire lifetime, including a few decades of operations, maintenance, future upgrades & everything else.
    I thought that "calculation" was hilarious. Hey, how much does $15 broom cost when you figure in janitor's salary over 30 years?

  28. #1108
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    Breaking News:

    Canada to withdraw from F-35 programme. Will consider F-18F and F-15 variants as an alternative.
    Might be a little less of the old poisson d'avril to this by tomorrow. Sounds like the auditor-general's ready to put the boot in.

    http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/1154949

  29. #1109
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    Well Canada could try to arrange a competition like we did in Norway.... However I think they would struggle to find a company that would be desperate enough to enter a bid, given the odds...

    It seems to me that the Canadian Air Force already has indicated some of the requirements. Just like in Norway, there will be only one (Western) a/c that will meet the requirements and that will be the F-35.

    So I agree with the Canadian MoD; why arrange a competition with only one candidate? Does not make sense.... (pun not intended Sens )

  30. #1110
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    594
    Loke - That may be true, insofar as the only way to make the F-35 win a contest is to tailor the rules to it, while making up estimates for the cost of other aircraft. Watch for emerging news...

    Spud - You might care to reconsider your "the majority of the avionics work is done" in the light of the fact that IOT&E completion has just slipped another three years, to 2019.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES