Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 34 of 69 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536373844 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,020 of 2061

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #991
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Kind of surprising that the F-35 is about the same weight as the F-15C and its radar is 0.8m in diameter vs 0.9-1m.
    Wonder if the design couldn't have been different with the intake more to the sides to have a wider front fuselage with a larger radome.
    They could have gained 10cm on each side.
    Even without moving the intakes they could have had a larger fuselage at the front by using a different angle along the front fuselage, like on the J-20.
    It would have had a longer radome, so what?
    F-35 need to have internal weapons bay , RAS and loads of internal fuel. The radome also need to be a certain shape for VLO purpose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    And the pics above show that the F-35 is much darker than the F-15, it's probably quite easy to spot visually.
    Not too optimized for a2a...
    F-35 is smaller though, paint color are much easier to customise compared to raw size

  2. #992
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    F-35 need to have internal weapons bay , RAS and loads of internal fuel. The radome also need to be a certain shape for VLO purpose.
    The fuselage is large because of the bays, so that enables to have a larger radome without increasing the cross section much.

    Check the J-20 forward fuselage, it is not as pointy as the F-35's:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	58185d0dc46188fe4b8b456f.jpg 
Views:	138 
Size:	53.9 KB 
ID:	252727

    The radome would be designed accordingly for stealth of course, no problem with that.

    I believe the F-35's radar is about 0.75m in diameter, it could have been more. Probably the cockpit would have been a bit higher but rear visibilty would have been improved, so it's not a bad trade off.


    F-35 is smaller though, paint color are much easier to customise compared to raw size
    Then what are they waiting for.. the F-35 plan is to NOT be seen visually. A fighter pilot with good eyesight can see visually a fighter at up to 12km or so. The best fighter ace of the modern area ( an Israeli pilot whose callsign was hawkeye ) was able to see other planes at 20-25km.

  3. #993
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,144
    Then what are they waiting for.. the F-35 plan is to NOT be seen visually. A fighter pilot with good eyesight can see visually a fighter at up to 12km or so. The best fighter ace of the modern area ( an Israeli pilot whose callsign was hawkeye ) was able to see other planes at 20-25km.
    I do not know for F-35, but for Rafale it's been a pain in... to find a radar transparent paint over the RAM. (first Rafale C was black, remember). Could be that type of issue.

  4. #994
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The fuselage is large because of the bays, so that enables to have a larger radome without increasing the cross section much.
    Check the J-20 forward fuselage, it is not as pointy as the F-35's:
    The radome would be designed accordingly for stealth of course, no problem with that.
    I believe the F-35's radar is about 0.75m in diameter, it could have been more.
    F-35 already has very big radar, much bigger than the one on F-16, F-18, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon. Changing the outer shape which will affect aerodynamic and VLO characteristics just to get the radar abit bigger doesn't seem like a wise decision. It is not like stealth aircraft require massively powerful radar anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Probably the cockpit would have been a bit higher but rear visibilty would have been improved, so it's not a bad trade off.
    F-35 has DAS so vision is not really a big problem, it has very similar canopy style as the PAK-FA after all




    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Then what are they waiting for.. the F-35 plan is to NOT be seen visually. A fighter pilot with good eyesight can see visually a fighter at up to 12km or so. The best fighter ace of the modern area ( an Israeli pilot whose callsign was hawkeye ) was able to see other planes at 20-25km.
    The problem is that, you only guessed that F-15 colors is harder to see than F-35 in normal condition, we don't know if it actually the case, nor do we know how much the slight different color tone would change visual detection range, would it be 1%? 6%.?... etc.h
    Last edited by garryA; 21st April 2017 at 09:19.

  5. #995
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Moot point on visibility surely. EODAS and EOIRST will pick up enemies well before the Mk1 eyeball can.

  6. #996
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    F-35 already has very big radar, much bigger than the one on F-16, F-18, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon. Changing the outer shape which will affect aerodynamic and VLO characteristics just to get the radar abit bigger doesn't seem like a wise decision. It is not like stealth aircraft require massively powerful radar anyway
    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.

    My guess would be that they gave it that radar size to have the shortest plane possible for the amphibious carrier requirement, and also probably to save cost on the radar, due to the fact that the plane is multi-role.


    F-35 has DAS so vision is not really a big problem, it has very similar canopy style as the PAK-FA after all

    It is still better to have good visibility even without the DAS. The canopy would have been a bit larger but not by much, it would have had more the shape of an F-22 canopy, that is smaller than F-16 or F-15 canopy.

    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. AFAIK the current T-50 canopy is not the production design. The production design will probably have better rear visibility.


    The problem is that, you only guessed that F-15 colors is harder to see than F-35 in normal condition, we don't know if it actually the case, nor do we know how much the slight different color tone would change visual detection range, would it be 1%? 6%.?... etc.h
    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.

  7. #997
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Moot point on visibility surely. EODAS and EOIRST will pick up enemies well before the Mk1 eyeball can.
    Easy to say that when you're not a fighter pilot.

  8. #998
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,500
    F-35C targeting system guides weapon to moving target


    The F-35 Integrated Test Force recently performed another first-of-its-kind test when the aircraft released a laser-guided bomb against a moving target.

    An F-35C being tested here released specially built GBU-12 Paveway II guided bomb over a controlled range at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in the California desert, successfully engaging a small pickup truck March 29.

    According to engineer Collin O’Fallon of the 775th Flight Test Squadron, this F-35 weapons delivery accuracy test was the first from an F-35 in the 3F software configuration, which has incorporated new release logic to enhance effectiveness against moving targets, with the objective of reducing pilot workload. O’Fallon is matrixed to the 461st Flight Test Squadron “Deadly Jesters” for the testing.

    “This logic is called Lead Point Compute, which in essence, delays the release point of the weapon to ensure the weapon has the available kinematics to guide to and reach the target at its future location,” O’Fallon said.

    The system evaluates the speed and direction of the target against the altitude and speed of the aircraft to determine the exact release.

    “The higher and faster you go, the farther you can sling the thing,” he said.

    The GBU-12 is a proven weapon with many years of service on multiple platforms. So these tests are designed to stress the weapon platform -- the aircraft – rather than the weapon itself. For testing, the GBU-12 was built up using an explosively inert warhead, and the fuze was replaced with an inertial measurement unit to measure accelerations during employment, according to O’Fallon.

    “This was really a test of the aircraft targeting system and associated weaponeering logic, and the results of this test will be used to certify this capability with a GBU-12 on the F-35.

    The weaponeering logic is all the information compiled to give the pilot that one solution.

    “(The pilot) doesn’t have to think about how fast the target’s going, or what direction,” O’Fallon said. “By him using this 3F capability, it’s doing all the weaponeering for him. That’s really the big thing, it’s a single-seat fighter. He’s got to do it all, so we want to do as much for him as we can.”

    Although the GBU-12 was inert, it still made short work of its intended target, a small pickup truck.

    O’Fallon said the decision was that the target vehicle would be towed on a 60-foot trailer by an existing remote controlled tow vehicle in the interest of saving time and money. The tow vehicle was not controlled in real time, but rather the route was recorded via GPS and the controlling computer drove this route maintaining a sterile exclusion zone.

    “It’s pretty cool. The guy gets in, hits the record button. He drives the route we want. Then he hits save and the vehicle will reset itself to its initial start point,” said O'Fallon.

    The whole point of the autonomous tow vehicle was safety, making sure nobody’s in the hazard zone.

    “Nobody has to be in there making last-minute adjustments,” O’Fallon said.

    According to O’Fallon, the data collected from this test will certify this weapon capability and enhance the lethality of the F-35.

    "This test is also the first developmental test release of a guided GBU-12 from the F-35C model."

    Developmental testing here has now performed a GBU-12 release from every F-35 variant.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  9. #999
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    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.

    My guess would be that they gave it that radar size to have the shortest plane possible for the amphibious carrier requirement, and also probably to save cost on the radar, due to the fact that the plane is multi-role.




    It is still better to have good visibility even without the DAS. The canopy would have been a bit larger but not by much, it would have had more the shape of an F-22 canopy, that is smaller than F-16 or F-15 canopy.

    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. AFAIK the current T-50 canopy is not the production design. The production design will probably have better rear visibility.
    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.
    Halloweene, with all the due respect it seems me that you want to found a defect at any cost in the F-35.
    Also the F-15E is painted in a darker shade than the C/D version and in this case there wasn't ever the issue of stealth, it was just that one is a air superiority fighter that have to operate at an high quote while the other is a strike plane that was supposed to operate at a standard height and mainly at night (introduction of JDAMs changhed things on that regard but colour stayied).


    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    clean block 25/32 has better agility than later block 50/52 as far as i know
    Yes, they have a lighter frame so even with a relatively less powerful engine they remained more maneovrable due to the lesser wing load.
    Using two different engines, one for higher performances, the other for optimal fuel consumtion was a good way to get an A2A and A2G specced version from the same frame.

    Now the trend from the end of Cold War until now it have been constantly toward a constant increase of relevance of the A2G role in the mix and the F-35 was designed from the start along these guidelines, not as a air superiority one, so it's not at all surprising that it sport a darker hue and is evaluated in this role first.

  10. #1000
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,433
    Official, Dave just got a new BVRAAM. The British MOD just signed with MBDA the integration contract for Meteor.
    From 2024 the RAF Dave's will be fielding the Meteor.

    Cheers

  11. #1001
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Official, Dave just got a new BVRAAM. The British MOD just signed with MBDA the integration contract for Meteor.
    From 2024 the RAF Dave's will be fielding the Meteor.

    Cheers
    From 2024?
    Thanks

  12. #1002
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,144
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    From 2024?
    yes.

  13. #1003
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,144
    Halloweene, with all the due respect it seems me that you want to found a defect at any cost in the F-35.
    Also the F-15E is painted in a darker shade than the C/D version and in this case there wasn't ever the issue of stealth, it was just that one is a air superiority fighter that have to operate at an high quote while the other is a strike plane that was supposed to operate at a standard height and mainly at night (introduction of JDAMs changhed things on that regard but colour stayied).
    No. I just saud there was a problem on Rafale for colour of painting and it could have been the same issue on F-35. That's all. F-35 has enough defaults so i wouldn not bitch on that

  14. #1004
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Are we talking about Meteor on F-35 by 2024, or just Meteor in RAF by 2024? Because it's due on the Typhoon in June 2018.

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...-2015-2025.pdf

  15. #1005
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Are we talking about Meteor on F-35 by 2024, or just Meteor in RAF by 2024? Because it's due on the Typhoon in June 2018.

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...-2015-2025.pdf
    https://twitter.com/byMBDA/status/855402177954816000

    Meteor on F-335
    Last edited by halloweene; 21st April 2017 at 13:24.

  16. #1006
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Yes, thought so.

    The weapon will enter service on Typhoon with the RAF in 2018 and the F-35B from 2024.

  17. #1007
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Halloweene, with all the due respect it seems me that you want to found a defect at any cost in the F-35.
    Also the F-15E is painted in a darker shade than the C/D version and in this case there wasn't ever the issue of stealth, it was just that one is a air superiority fighter that have to operate at an high quote while the other is a strike plane that was supposed to operate at a standard height and mainly at night (introduction of JDAMs changhed things on that regard but colour stayied).
    Don't know what Halloweene would think about that, but nowadays in the era of off boresight missile, if you're seen visually you're dead. The F-35 is not meant to replace the F-15E. The F-16 and F-18C are light grey and the AV-8B is not used regularly for a2a and is used mainly for CAS.

    As a stealth plane the F-35 would fly at high altitude most of the time probably so doesn't need a dark color.

  18. #1008
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    On colour.

    The F-35 will be getting a new, cleaner look. New airplanes will roll out with the new coating starting late second quarter of this year, and older airplanes will be scheduled to get the new coating over time.



    Apparently the new uniform coating will save $49 million in materials throughout the program lifetime, and save ~128 work hours per airplane.

  19. #1009
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Don't know what Halloweene would think about that, but nowadays in the era of off boresight missile, if you're seen visually you're dead. The F-35 is not meant to replace the F-15E. The F-16 and F-18C are light grey and the AV-8B is not used regularly for a2a and is used mainly for CAS.

    As a stealth plane the F-35 would fly at high altitude most of the time probably so doesn't need a dark color.
    What???
    This is a nonsensical argument. The colors have zero, zero importance. Look at the F-22, the Rafale, the paint scheme of the Russian flanker variants. Does their dark color (or wild patterns in the case of flankers) mean that aren't tasked for AtA engagements?

    Btw, at high altitudes, the sky above appears dark. A darker shade paint would be tougher to locate flying above you at 40,000 feet.

    (edit- typing on iPhone is a sure way to appear illiterate, time for bifocals)
    Last edited by FBW; 21st April 2017 at 14:59.

  20. #1010
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Easy to say that when you're not a fighter pilot.
    It's a fact surely though?

  21. #1011
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Don't know what Halloweene would think about that, but nowadays in the era of off boresight missile, if you're seen visually you're dead. The F-35 is not meant to replace the F-15E. The F-16 and F-18C are light grey and the AV-8B is not used regularly for a2a and is used mainly for CAS.

    As a stealth plane the F-35 would fly at high altitude most of the time probably so doesn't need a dark color.
    Not really any opinion about that.

  22. #1012
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Just make an hot take off with a F-35 headed to operative quote as fast as it can and publish the results after.
    Also a normal climb rate data would be appreciated anyway, given that the plane has been declared operative.
    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).

  23. #1013
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    On colour.

    The F-35 will be getting a new, cleaner look. New airplanes will roll out with the new coating starting late second quarter of this year, and older airplanes will be scheduled to get the new coating over time.



    Apparently the new uniform coating will save $49 million in materials throughout the program lifetime, and save ~128 work hours per airplane.

    Ah, the color looks lighter, now it looks like a fighter, and it costs less, good news!

  24. #1014
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    What???
    This is a nonsensical argument. The colors have zero, zero importance. Look at the F-22, the Rafale, the paint scheme of the Russian flanker variants. Does their dark color (or wild patterns in the case of flankers) mean that aren't tasked for AtA engagements?

    Btw, at high altitudes, the sky above appears dark. A darker shade paint would be tougher to locate flying above you at 40,000 feet.

    (edit- typing on iPhone is a sure way to appear illiterate, time for bifocals)
    AHAH! what would you invent when you have no argument! Effing Ridiculous!!

  25. #1015
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Not really any opinion about that.
    Well, I do. A fighter needs a light color. Glad that they will do it.

  26. #1016
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    AHAH! what would you invent when you have no argument! Effing Ridiculous!!
    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):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hqdefault.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	14.7 KB 
ID:	252735
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	12193755-A-view-at-40-000-feet-above-the-clouds-with-the-sky-fading-to-space-this-area-is-known-.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	74.3 KB 
ID:	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.
    Last edited by FBW; 21st April 2017 at 16:22.

  27. #1017
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    pfwahahah he continues omg!

    Anyways it was almost obvious there was a problem with the color, except for the idiots.. and there are a lot of them LOL! especially with group thinking coming into play..

  28. #1018
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    pfwahahah he continues omg!

    Anyways it was almost obvious there was a problem with the color, except for the idiots.. and there are a lot of them LOL! especially with group thinking coming into play..
    Seriously, instead of calling others names, look up why the US aircraft are that shade of grey.

    Then grow up, learn, and don't insult others who are correcting your silly posts.
    The color is called "air superiority grey", and while there is some variation in the shades, they are all greyish.
    https://theaviationist.com/2013/02/25/gray-dragon-story/

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/18/science/air-force-sees-beauty-in-ugly-ducklings.html
    Last edited by FBW; 21st April 2017 at 16:32.

  29. #1019
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    ahah arrogant a little bit FBW? Juust a little bit.. arrogant but wrong!

  30. #1020
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    ahah arrogant a little bit FBW? Juust a little bit.. arrogant but wrong!
    Being correct isn't arrogant. I gave you links to read, the grey schemes of the F-35/22 are low visibility. So, as I said, your argument is stupid, accept that. The second one from The NY Times is particularly interesting, the "robins egg" blue of the F-15C made them more visible.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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