Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 35 of 65 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637383945 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,050 of 1948

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #1021
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    WTF was that answer? Your links prove exactly what I say, you arrogant idiot! And they're gonna do exactly that, which is to paint the plane in lighter color. Will it have a dual color paint on top like the F-22 we will see, but the most important is that the plane is close to light grey!

    I think you've said enough stupidities for the rest of the week now. Go get some rest!

  2. #1022
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    I'm not in a good mood today FBW - like most Frenchmen-, so please don't get on my nerves. Talk to you later...

  3. #1023
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    WTF was that answer? Your links prove exactly what I say, you arrogant idiot! And they're gonna do exactly that, which is to paint the plane in lighter color. Will it have a dual color paint on top like the F-22 we will see, but the most important is that the plane is close to light grey!

    I think you've said enough stupidities for the rest of the week now. Go get some rest!
    Look at the color they've started painting F-16's. Google is your friend. Again your point is stupid, look at the shades used by the F-22, F-35 ( the new shade has zero to do with visibility- it's the application of the coating), they are not changing shading for visibility reasons. The grey used on all usaf aircraft may shade lighter or darker but irregardless, your point about the F-35 being "too dark" for a fighter was dumb and looking at the F-23 and F-35 flying together should have stopped that train of thought before you wasted a page and started insulting other posters.

    Your wrong and acting like a child (which considering your posts, I'm not sure you aren't). I won't call you names as I'm pretty sure you are a teen or youth. Perhaps it's time to stop posting and learn.

    Here is a new F-16 color scheme:

    https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/25/south-dakota-ang-f-16c-jets-including-one-in-new-f-35-like-dark-grey-color-scheme-arrive-at-raf-mildenhall/

    Edit- not that I necessarily buy cenciotti's explanation that the dark grey is a new Have Glass treatment, but clearly these f-16's are a darker grey.
    Last edited by FBW; 21st April 2017 at 17:24.

  4. #1024
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Just to clarify, the new coating is to save money, improve RAM and hide discontinuities. It's nothing to do with visual sighting range but it does happen to change the colour slightly.

  5. #1025
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,795
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    No idea what you are saying here. But this might be the silliest criticism I've read on here. Look at the shades of grey used by most air forces.

    BTW this is what the sky above looks like when flying at high altitude (roughly 40,000 feet according to the images):
    Attachment 252735
    Attachment 252736

    Of course all of this is a rather moot point, if a pilot first becomes aware of the presence of a bandit by visual detection, they are probably dead.

    Addition- when they tested the F-117 for daylight ops, what color did they paint it to make it less visible? Sorry, the grey color of the F-35/22 was determined to be the best camouflage.
    Umm.. not saying you are wrong here, but why does the VKS jets have the bright and fairly light color underneath 90% of all their fighters?

    If you are talking about operating over 40k ft, for a prolonged time, then the only Nato jet that comes to mind is F-22.. well if they finally have sorted out the returning from missions suffering from hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation.

    90% if not more of all the fighter jets are operating in the low to Medium altitude where you have the optimum performance between juce/air for engines and less drag.

    If your point is that the color does not judge the detection of any jet, then claiming it has to be darker for very high altitude.. well..
    Last edited by haavarla; 21st April 2017 at 18:02.
    Thanks

  6. #1026
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,359
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Umm.. not saying you are wrong here, but why does the VKS jets have the bright and fairly light color underneath 90% of all their fighters?

    If you are talking about operating over 40k ft, for a prolonged time, then the only Nato jet that comes to mind is F-22.. well if they finally have sorted out the returning from missions suffering from hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation.

    90% if not more of all the fighter jets are operating in the low to Medium altitude where you have the optimum performance between juce/air for engines and less drag.

    If your point is that the color does not judge the detection of any jet, then claiming it has to be darker for very high altitude.. well..
    Most are lighter on the underside due to visibility from the ground. The greys seem to blend better with horizon when flying above cloud level.

    40k isn't particularly high for fighter aircraft. Most operate between 30-40 thousand feet.

    And no, drag decreases as altitude increases, while engine power may also decrease, this is partially offset by decrease in drag.

    As far as colors, my point is they don't necessarily determine mission set. Russia uses colors they believe are low visibility, NATO fighters are mostly in shades of low vis grey as that was determined to make them less visually detectable at the altitudes they typically operate at (30,000-40,000 ft).

  7. #1027
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    No it doesn't have a very big radar. The typhoon's radar is probably even larger.
    F-35 radar has more T/R modules than even PAK-FA's radar. Unless they use vastly different frequency ( which is highly unlikely because of resolution and what not), F-35 do have a bigger radar than Eurofighter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The negative effects in aerodynamics would be minimal, and that would be largely compensated by increase in radar range. VLO is not an issue here.
    Those statement would need to be backed up by hard data. You don't know how much radar range will improve or how much it would affect aircraft signature , aerodynamic and weight




    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The T-50's canopy is a bit higher, the F-35's canopy would have looked almost the same had the cockpit been like 10cm higher.
    I don't think so. They look the same,there may be 2-3 cm different but offered no advantage for backward visibility.If visibility was top piriority then the canopy will look more like F-16's



    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    AFAIK the current T-50 canopy is not the production design. The production design will probably have better rear visibility.
    Highly unlieky, if you change the canopy shape then alot others factors like aerodynamic and siganture will change. I don't think they want to do all the test again

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    You can check numerous videos and pictures of the F-35 and other planes next to each other and you will see that the F-35 is significantly darker. The F-16 is multi-role and has a much lighter paint scheme and the F-35 is meant to replace it.

  8. #1028
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,117
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    And what has been released on the climb rates for the F-22, Rafale, and Typhoon? Other than vague charts or some initial climb rate figures, not much. An F-22 pilot got into deep trouble posting some impressions of the F-22 climb and supersonic ability on a forum a few years back. There won't be any official release of the data you want due to OPSEC. In other words, you may want figures for climb to altitude then acceleration to supersonic, but your not going to see a flight manual or acceleration graphs released by the L-M or any service for a long time (if ever).
    0to 40 000 fts in slightly less than 2 mins for Rafale. Not very precise, but documented.
    Last edited by halloweene; 21st April 2017 at 18:36.

  9. #1029
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    No it doesn't have a very big radar. The typhoon's radar is probably even larger. The negative effects in aerodynamics would be minimal, and that would be largely compensated by increase in radar range. VLO is not an issue here.
    Actually, Captor's diameter is generally given as 70cm, so no, it isn't bigger.

  10. #1030
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,354
    So if I understand FBW correctly, dark grey is best for camouflage at high alt, so they are going to make the F35 light grey.

    Makes sense.

  11. #1031
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,795
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    F-35 radar has more T/R modules than even PAK-FA's radar. Unless they use vastly different frequency ( which is highly unlikely because of resolution and what not), F-35 do have a bigger radar than Eurofighter.
    So have you seen the PakFa radar array, and have you counted the T/r modules?

    The nose on PakFa is wider, a little similar to the Su-34 nose. I really wonder how the AESA array looks like in shape.
    Last edited by haavarla; 21st April 2017 at 20:24.
    Thanks

  12. #1032
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    So if I understand FBW correctly, dark grey is best for camouflage at high alt, so they are going to make the F35 light grey.

    Makes sense.
    Don't think you understood me at all. But if it makes you feel better go ahead with that. Grey is the best color, there are various shades used by NATO.

    I would say that the F-22, Rafale, F-35 are a darker grey than the RAF uses for example.
    Last edited by FBW; 21st April 2017 at 20:32.

  13. #1033
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,354
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Don't think you understood me at all. But if it makes you feel better go ahead with that. Grey is the best color, there are various shades used by NATO.

    I would say that the F-22, Rafale, F-35 are a darker grey than the RAF uses for example.
    With so many shades of grey I think Nato's air forces are going to get spanked.

  14. #1034
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,694
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    The nose on PakFa is wider, a little similar to the Su-34 nose. I really wonder how the AESA array looks like in shape.

  15. #1035
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    With so many shades of grey I think Nato's air forces are going to get spanked.
    Maybe they like it rough.

  16. #1036
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Is it the same radar they put inside T-50?.This looks built for testing on Flanker.

  17. #1037
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,694
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    Is it the same radar they put inside T-50?.This looks built for testing on Flanker.
    The non-circular cross-section clearly reveals it is not for a Flanker..
    Name:  PAK-FA radar 06.jpg
Views: 258
Size:  2.80 MB

  18. #1038
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    So have you seen the PakFa radar array, and have you counted the T/r modules?
    AFAIK , radar for PAK-FA is the one in the left in picture below, with 1552 T/R modules according to public information

    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    0to 40 000 fts in slightly less than 2 mins for Rafale. Not very precise, but documented.
    where does that figure came from ?
    Last edited by garryA; 22nd April 2017 at 00:33.

  19. #1039
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Look at the color they've started painting F-16's. Google is your friend. Again your point is stupid, look at the shades used by the F-22, F-35 ( the new shade has zero to do with visibility- it's the application of the coating), they are not changing shading for visibility reasons. The grey used on all usaf aircraft may shade lighter or darker but irregardless, your point about the F-35 being "too dark" for a fighter was dumb and looking at the F-23 and F-35 flying together should have stopped that train of thought before you wasted a page and started insulting other posters.

    Your wrong and acting like a child (which considering your posts, I'm not sure you aren't). I won't call you names as I'm pretty sure you are a teen or youth. Perhaps it's time to stop posting and learn.

    Here is a new F-16 color scheme:

    https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/2...af-mildenhall/

    Edit- not that I necessarily buy cenciotti's explanation that the dark grey is a new Have Glass treatment, but clearly these f-16's are a darker grey.
    More BS.. All air forces paint their primary fighters in light colors, sometimes with 2 shades on top or onz color on top that's a bit darker than below.

    Maybe you deserve to be called an arrogant idiot after all...

  20. #1040
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Actually, Captor's diameter is generally given as 70cm, so no, it isn't bigger.
    Sources vary, they're probably about the same, the captor can rotate so the antenna might a bit smaller hard to say. The AESA antenna is likely to be a bit larger than the Captor antenna.

  21. #1041
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    F-35 radar has more T/R modules than even PAK-FA's radar. Unless they use vastly different frequency ( which is highly unlikely because of resolution and what not), F-35 do have a bigger radar than Eurofighter.
    The Caesar antenna will be a bit larger though, and can rotate, which is a interesting capability for a2a.

    Still doesn't mean that the F-35 couldn't have had a larger radar with minimal consequences, except for the extra weight for the stovl variant.



    Those statement would need to be backed up by hard data. You don't know how much radar range will improve or how much it would affect aircraft signature , aerodynamic and weight
    Do you really need hard data for that? If having an almost straight forward fuselage to have a large radar in front was that bad, most fighters capable of mach 2+ wouldn't be designed like that.




    I don't think so. They look the same,there may be 2-3 cm different but offered no advantage for backward visibility.If visibility was top piriority then the canopy will look more like F-16's

    Your 2 pictures are not from the same angle. If you look at pictures from the same angle you'll see the difference is probably about 10cm. If the cockpit is elevated by 10cm that means that the radar would be 20cm more in diameter, that might be a bit too much.

    Note also that the edge on the side of the F-35 fuselage is at an angle ( up towards the intake ), contrarily to that of the T-50, so that gives the illusion from those pictures that the difference is not much.



    Highly unlieky, if you change the canopy shape then alot others factors like aerodynamic and siganture will change. I don't think they want to do all the test again


    DUH! Of course I'm not talking about changing the shape now. You think about that when you design the plane. And btw, when they did the requirement for the plane they didn't expect that the JSF would face stealth planes that soon, and that it would be so late. The Chinese have had plenty of time to study the F-35 and may well have chosen a larger antenna deliberately to be on par.

    Now I was thinking about that yesterday, if they are looking at an F-35 derivative for the future a2a dominance fighter to save costs vs a new gen plane, maybe modifying the forward fuselage for a larger antenna and exploit the extra width for side arrays could be an idea... Of course there would a CoG issue to solve. Bigger modifications than that have been done on other planes. Think Su-34 for instance


    These F-16s have a special coating for low RCS for the SEAD role, it has nothing to do with visibility issues.
    Last edited by Hotshot; 22nd April 2017 at 07:19.

  22. #1042
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The Caesar antenna will be a bit larger though
    It still smaller than Apg-81 as far as i know

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    and can rotate, which is a interesting capability for a2a
    Rotating antenna is interesting but not very good for stealth design


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Do you really need hard data for that? If having an almost straight forward fuselage to have a large radar in front was that bad, most fighters capable of mach 2+ wouldn't be designed like that.
    In this case You have to prove that having forward straight nose can increase antenna aperture to the point that it can outweight the drawback in aerodynamic, weight and signature, which is not possible without hard data
    Last edited by garryA; 22nd April 2017 at 08:25.

  23. #1043
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Your 2 pictures are not from the same angle. If you look at pictures from the same angle you'll see the difference is probably about 10cm.
    Regardless of what angle you look at it, i don't see how PAK-FA canopy would offer any better reward visibility, it is probably worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    If the cockpit is elevated by 10cm that means that the radar would be 20cm more in diameter, that might be a bit too much.
    No, if the cockpit go up by 10 cm and everything remain the same then in theory you get 10 cm more for radar, but much of that probably gone into structure strengthen for bigger frame

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Note also that the edge on the side of the F-35 fuselage is at an angle ( up towards the intake ), contrarily to that of the T-50, so that gives the illusion from those pictures that the difference is not much.
    Their canopy are practically the same, and if you consider that all aircraft fly at positive AoA when turning then a slightly higher canopy doesn't really make any different. A full bubble canopy such as on F-16 or Eurofighter, on the otherhand , do give much better reward visibility but they don't have anything similar to DAS


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    DUH! Of course I'm not talking about changing the shape now. You think about that when you design the plane. And btw, when they did the requirement for the plane they didn't expect that the JSF would face stealth planes that soon, and that it would be so late. The Chinese have had plenty of time to study the F-35 and may well have chosen a larger antenna deliberately to be on par.
    Now I was thinking about that yesterday, if they are looking at an F-35 derivative for the future a2a dominance fighter to save costs vs a new gen plane, maybe modifying the forward fuselage for a larger antenna and exploit the extra width for side arrays could be an idea... Of course there would a CoG issue to solve. Bigger modifications than that have been done on other planes. Think Su-34 for instance
    If the problem is adversary stealth aircraft then getting biggger radar is not really solution given that stealth aircraft can comfortably hide from much bigger and more powerful surface radar. By contrast, a bigger frame to accomodate bigger radar could be a disadvantage in this case since it means bigger aircraft, likely easier to find with IRST

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    These F-16s have a special coating for low RCS for the SEAD role, it has nothing to do with visibility issues.
    You said the multirole F-16 has much lighter paint, which is clearly not the case if we looking at the newest one. Moreover, it is hard to know how much a slightly lighter paint would improve visibility, there are others factors such as altitude , time and weather in play as well
    Last edited by garryA; 22nd April 2017 at 08:28.

  24. #1044
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    I'm sorry GarryA, I have no time for that kind of nonsense. It would be such a waste of time to reply to most of what you say. No patience for that...

  25. #1045
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    I'm sorry GarryA, I have no time for that kind of nonsense. It would be such a waste of time to reply to most of what you say. No patience for that...
    You are the one who proposed getting a higher canopy and straight nose for f-35, assuming it would be a good decision without any hard data . I only explain why it may not be the case.
    Last edited by garryA; 22nd April 2017 at 08:40.

  26. #1046
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,871
    What had i told you guys all this time ?

    Britain, MBDA cut trio of missile-related deals worth $690M

    In what is expected to be the final significant military equipment announcement by the British government ahead of the June 8 general election, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has revealed a set of missile-related orders with MBDA worth more than half a billion dollars.

    Official go-ahead for the start of integration work on the Meteor air-to-air missile on the Lockheed Martin F-35B;... announced by Fallon at a hurriedly arranged visit to MBDA's Stevenage, England, site on April 21....

    ...the Ministry of Defence is investing £539 million (U.S. $690 million) in the orders, some of which have been sitting around for months awaiting announcement....

    ...Fallon’s announcement at Stevenage gave the official go-ahead for the start of the integration of the Meteor missile onto the F-35B fleet now slowly being built up by the British for use by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.

    The defense secretary said that the MoD was investing £41 million into the Meteor's integration and that the missiles would enter service on the F-35B in 2024. But the missile is expected to enter service even sooner next year when it begins to replace the Raytheon-made Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles on the Air Force’s Typhoon fleet...."
    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...als-worth-690m

  27. #1047
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,871
    The rest at source
    MBDA Prepares Meteor For F-35 Testing
    TEVENAGE, England—The UK defense ministry has signed a £41 million ($52.36 million) contract that will pave the way for the integration of the MBDA Meteor beyond visual-range air-to-air missile onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. MBDA will perform engineering testing and design a role change kit for the missile that will allow the weapon to be readied for fitment on both the Eurofighter and the F-35. The deal also includes production of the test missiles to be used in the ...
    http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...r-f-35-testing

  28. #1048
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,425
    This is just firming up what was expected for Block 4 which has now received JROC approval. Earlier they had Meteor at 4.3 which likely still remains the case.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  29. #1049
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,413
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    F-35 radar has more T/R modules than even PAK-FA's radar. Unless they use vastly different frequency ( which is highly unlikely because of resolution and what not), F-35 do have a bigger radar than Eurofighter.
    I think you are basing that assertion on several photos on the internet that count the number of TRM's on the AN/APG-81 antena, giving it a 1600 plus count, am I correct?
    Some two or three years, the TRM diagram of what looks like to be the AN/APG -81 hardware got out (you can find the images in this forum), one of the "low's" that was counted has a "TRM" (on the extreme right of each one of the TRM modules, if I remember correctly) was actually an open space, someone here did the math and got to something like around 1440 TRM's (I think) for the entire antenna.
    The discussion was here, but was reproduced around the web on several other forums.
    Thing is, right now claiming that the AN/APG-81 has a bigger TRM count than its competitors is precocious and (in my opinion) in relation to the PAK FA, wich is a much bigger airframe seems counter intuitive.

  30. #1050
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    More BS.. All air forces paint their primary fighters in light colors, sometimes with 2 shades on top or onz color on top that's a bit darker than below.

    Maybe you deserve to be called an arrogant idiot after all...
    Really? All? Let's look at the F-22, Rafale, F-35, tejas, J-11, some Su-35. Super light shade right?

    Only a child can't admit when their wrong. Done with you for now, you really should be ashamed over your temper tantrum this last few pages.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 17 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 13 guests)

  1. ActionJackson,
  2. MSphere,
  3. TooCool_12f

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