F-35 news roundup

[11bee]

Putin so cool, he fly ultimate stealth fighter jet wearing business suit! :thumbsup:/>/>

-Gregg

That's a fake. It's well know that when Vlad flies one of these, he is shirtless.

Edit - Sorry just realized MarkW beat me to the punch on this one!

Edited January 24, 2014 by 11bee

[MarkW]

Hey, you want to jumpo on a shirtless Putin, gotta move fast...uh...wait a second... :blink:

More T-50 bashing. A RCS in the 1-0.1m² is terrible.

http://www.janes.com/article/32190/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published

This, by the way, is an absolute joke.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

Fear not, though, Dr. Gilmore still hates the JSF:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/24/us-lockheed-fighter-exclusive-idUSBREA0N0ID20140124

[TaiidanTomcat]

How long before Sweetman puts out a hatchet piece on the T-50?? Any takers?

For me its a tough call. He is a huge Gripen Fanboy, and loathes 5th generation stealth aircraft, he hates the F-35 the most (right now) he never liked to use the PAKFA as a JSF Club, that was APA's thing. I'm guessing Bill will just call the same play he always does and say that stealth planes are too complex and expensive and that Russia needs to just buy late model Super Hornets Err.. super Flankers, sorry.

And here is the recent Axe job singing the T-50's praises, linked on the same page as the IAF piece.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9edbae7da1ee

He's nothing if not inconsistent.

Whenever EVERY possible subject is either "ZOMG AMAZEBALLS!!" or "WORST EVER, ZOMG" there is going to be some clashes. Aviation weak actually links to his stuff, between that and Sweetman, Avaition weak is basically competing with the weekly world news.

I'm waiting for Dr. Krap and company at APA to weigh in. They clearly have better analysis that anyone else, including people flying the jet, on F-35. They certainly will be able to tell the Indians how wrong they are.

I literally LOLed speaking of contradictions those two clowns and their "anonymous sources" are always fun

[Devilleader501]

T.T. you never fail to bring a smile to my face or a laugh unexpectedly when I am having a bad day. Your choice of pictures or even GIFS to showcase what you are trying to get across are truly funny as all hell. Its one of the only reasons why I still frequent this thread anymore. The bashing the F-35 has gotten in the last couple of years you'd think we were trying to fly to Pluto or something. It's astounding to me how no one brings all of the numbers together instead of the ones they want to complain about.

I got quite a chuckle out of the Indians bagging on the T-50 Hell even the Iranians are in on the new stealth technology. LOL Whats funny to me is how big the T-50 is in comparison to say the F-22 or even the JSF for that matter. Wouldn't the sheer size of the T-50 give it a huge disadvantage on cross section. Yay it has 2 engines and thrust vectoring and super cruise but really is it that much better if even the Indians wont buy it.

I guess the only aircraft in the world that would ever get away without having any people bagging on it would have to be a Valkyrie Vf 2ss Veritech or the SDF-1.

Oh but wait that would be Billions over budget and light years past it's Roll Out date. Then we would have to steam roll it after spending the Worlds savings on it to please the people of the USA who would be ungrateful if we were to ever eradicate the Alien Cronies who try to take over our planet. LOL

Always love your posts T.T.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm glad you enjoy them :thumbsup:/>/> everything I learned is from Trigger, Tony Stark, and FARK.com I give them credit/blame.

LO and size don't inherently contradict each other. B-2s are large and have a great LO signature. As you can see from these highly technical schematics B-2s are big:

The problems some have seen with PAKFA is shape. Now rumor has it that the Russians have even figured out there is a redesign needed to fix LO problems but there doesn't seem to be the funding to fix it. I could Be wrong, Berkut here seems to know a lot about Russian Aviation while remaining fairly independent, and I ask him for help when I need it with Russian gear. The links from MarkW are worth checking out

One thing is for sure, Honeymoon phase on the PAKFA is over. Welcome to development hell.

Edited January 24, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_24_2014_p0-657750.xml&p=1

Loren Thompson ...at AVIATION WEEK?!

At first, the math seems to add up: Even if we include the electronic defenses and targeting systems not usually subsumed in a Super Hornet price tag, the unit recurring flyaway cost of a single-seat F/A‑18 is about $80 million in today’s dollars. The corresponding cost for an F-35C is $130 million.

The problem with this comparison is that the Super Hornet first flew in 1995 and the F-35C in 2010. The cost of each airplane reflects the fact that they are at very different stages in their life cycles. Only 22 carrier-based versions of the F-35 have been produced compared with hundreds of Super Hornets. But when a similar number of Super Hornets had been produced, their unit recurring flyaway cost in today’s dollars was about what it is today for the F-35C.

This should not come as a surprise because fighters tend to follow the same learning curve over the course of their production. When 100 single-seat Super Hornets had been produced, the unit recurring flyaway cost—with all necessary electronics included—was about $110 million in today’s dollars, which is where F-35C is likely to stand at the 100th airplane. And when F-35C gets to 300 airplanes, its unit recurring flyaway cost will be about $90 million—right where the F/A-18E (the single-seat version) was in today’s dollars.

These numbers can be verified easily by perusing the Pentagon’s Selective Acquisition Reports. What they reveal is that the F/A-18E and F-35C have nearly identical unit production costs at the same stages in their evolutions. Where the airplanes differ markedly is in their operational performance—items like survivability, situational awareness and strike capability. Such differences explain why the Navy needs a new fighter in the first place.

Link is to page one, above quote from two

[MarkW]

Wouldn't the sheer size of the T-50 give it a huge disadvantage on cross section. Yay it has 2 engines and thrust vectoring and super cruise but really is it that much better if even the Indians wont buy it.

I guess the only aircraft in the world that would ever get away without having any people bagging on it would have to be a Valkyrie Vf 2ss Veritech or the SDF-1.

Oh but wait that would be Billions over budget and light years past it's Roll Out date. Then we would have to steam roll it after spending the Worlds savings on it to please the people of the USA who would be ungrateful if we were to ever eradicate the Alien Cronies who try to take over our planet. LOL

Always love your posts T.T.

Ok, break break. First:

Size matters not. Look at B-2. Judge B-2 by its size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For its ally is superior shaping and materials especially in search and track radar bands, and a powerful ally it is. The T-50 officially stopped being a stealth aircraft at an RCS of 0.1 m2, which has nothing to do with size and everything to do with Russia not stealing as many F-35 secrets as China did. What is especially ironic is the Russians inadvertently discovered the mathematical basis for stealth, yet here we are.

The B-2 kicks major @$$ in the nanny nanny poo poo you can't see me game. Class all it's own.

As for your second point, I think it is a bit insensitive to the hapless Zentradi who routinely curse UN SPACY vehicles while dying in droves in battle pods.

[-Neu-]

As for your second point, I think it is a bit insensitive to the hapless Zentradi who routinely curse UN SPACY vehicles while dying in droves in battle pods.

Lets be honest. It has very little to do with Valks and everything to do with "reaction missiles" (AKA the politically correct word for nukes). If they ever do come, don't worry, Putin's got this.

Oh and by the way the P-8 doesn't work. Maybe we should cancel that program too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-01-23/boeing-surveillance-plane-found-not-effective-for-mission.html

Edited January 24, 2014 by -Neu-

[Berkut]

How long before Sweetman puts out a hatchet piece on the T-50?? Any takers?

Yeah, not gonna happen. He is so "fair and balanced" that even Fox News is jealous of him.

Whats funny to me is how big the T-50 is in comparison to say the F-22 or even the JSF for that matter. Wouldn't the sheer size of the T-50 give it a huge disadvantage on cross section.

There are several things wrong here.

First off, in case you have actual size data of T-50, then i would be very interested to hear about it. Because it is still classified. We have very good idea of wingspan (confirmed atleast by two independent insiders), and from that length can be deduced. But again, nothing is certain as nothing is official. So those very good approximations we have do indeed show that T-50 is bigger, but barely. It is also by far and away slimmer than F-22.

Secondly, frontal area of T-50 is *smaller* than F-22. And have you seen it in profile? It is practically anorexic.

Third, see what MarkW has written regarding size. I remember reading a good analogy of size/RCS but i cant remember it now.

The problems some have seen with PAKFA is shape. Now rumor has it that the Russians have even figured out there is a redesign needed to fix LO problems but there doesn't seem to be the funding to fix it.

Never heard of such. It doesn't take long to do quick drawings and see that lines and angles repeat themself all over the plane, so they are certainly not morons and have done their homework. And keep in mind a certain dude that works with RCS section daily (with F-22 and -35 under his belt) was impressed by T-50 RCS, atleast from his trained eye.

The only RCS related change through out the prototypes i have seen are the intakes at the base of vertical tails. On first two prototypes they were angled outwards, from third and on they are looking inwards. Wingtips have changed from forth and on, but i think that is mostly aerodynamics driven change. Intakes at the base might be too, and their angling might have just changed due to nature of aerodynamics rather than RCS.

The T-50 officially stopped being a stealth aircraft at an RCS of 0.1 m2...

Quick question; Do you actually know how T-50's RCS is calculated? And i don't mean maths behind it, because obviously that is the same for any country on Earth. I mean for example F-22 figure is often given as 0.001m² and the likes, which is the absolutely lowest for F-22. Aka frontal, in perfect frequency. As soon as you turn down frequency or change angle away from something that is perfect head on, 0.001 figure disappears into thin air.

So; what do you think is 0.1-1m² based on? Since you are so certain T-50 is utter sh!t RCS wise, i am sure you will have no trouble answering this basic question.

PS: As it is painfully obvious you haven't read the actual patent, or heck, the 0.1-1 part, here is a link to it:

http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2502643

And i have checked, the relevant part is translated good, so it should pose no problem for you to answer my question above. :)

...and everything to do with Russia not stealing as many F-35 secrets as China did.

Sigh. Just sigh.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Berkut

[GreyGhost]

Radar "sees" objects differently than the eye does ...

-Gregg

[MarkW]

It goes without saying, but apparently not, that RCS measurements are dependent on angle and frequency. Since the RCS for the T-50 was given as a range of 1 to 0.1 m2, one can assume that a) that isn't the best RCS as the Russians would be foolish to publish it and B) it is likely in X-band which is the most common yardstick to measure against given the preponderance of eastern and western systems that utilize X band in targeting radars.

But yeah, if the RCS is truly in the .1-1m2 range, it's a pathetic joke. If it's in X band, they'll be shot in the face by ANY tactical fighter, and an F-35 or 22 before they ever knew the other guy was there. If it is in L or S band, they will be so visible to other platforms using search radars they'll be fair game for any Western fighter. Unlike so many scenarios, our fighters do not operate alone.

The T-50 would have to be many times better to be considered really awesome. And the lack of stealth does explain the high degree of maneuverability the T-50 appears to have built in. It needs to be able to knife fight.

And for fun, keep in mind the B-2, a decades old design, was built for all aspect stealth.

[Berkut]

It goes without saying, but apparently not, that RCS measurements are dependent on angle and frequency.

Which is not exactly what i said above?

But yeah, if the RCS is truly in the .1-1m2 range, it's a pathetic joke.

You haven't answered my simple question yet (requiring only google translate). This reminds me off: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Guess i would have to spell it out eventually.

Btw, what is the official measurement for being "officially stealth aircraft"? And who are you to set it?

Edited January 25, 2014 by Berkut

[DutyCat]

Lets be honest. It has very little to do with Valks and everything to do with "reaction missiles" (AKA the politically correct word for nukes). If they ever do come, don't worry, Putin's got this.

Oh and by the way the P-8 doesn't work. Maybe we should cancel that program too.

http://www.bloomberg...or-mission.html

This is just a totally boss picture.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yeah, not gonna happen. He is so "fair and balanced" that even Fox News is jealous of him.

[MarkW]

You haven't answered my simple question yet (requiring only google translate). This reminds me off: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Guess i would have to spell it out eventually.

Unfortunately, I did answer your question. It appears you do not understand it, and I can't help you with that.

Btw, what is the official measurement for being "officially stealth aircraft"? And who are you to set it?

I'm absolutely nobody who knows nothing of such things. Sorry you took this so personally.

[Berkut]

Nope, you clearly didn't. You only talked about frequencies, which i am perfectly aware off yet you felt the need to repeat it. Since you seem to be unable to fire up Google Translate, time for me to spell it out. Original quote and translated version.

Технический результат, на достижение которого направлено изобретение, заключается в снижении величины РЛ-заметности самолета до средней величины порядка 0,1-1 м2.

Technical result, which is the aim of this invention/patent, is to reduce the magnitude of radar visibility of the aircraft to an average of about 0.1-1 m2.

average

Is it clear now? It is unknown if it is average for bands or position, or both. They are not stupid, of course they will avoid clarifying that.

So, is the 0.0001 number for F-22 etc average number? No. It is always minimum frontal number. And look Have Blue had minimum frontal RCS of 1 m² (shh, never mind the frequency) zomg, clearly it suxz.

You are ready to bash, but you are never ready to face facts or learn. I would never bash F-35's RCS section, simply because i am totally ignorant about the details of it. You are happily ignorant and ready to bash. :)

[MarkW]

Ok, uh, wow. yeah. You got me there. Way to make a personal attack there, appreciate the adult conversation. Have Blue has a 1m² RCS, huh? Well of course it does, everything sucks at VLF where the wavelength approaches a significant fraction of the length of the overall body. Problem is, you can't guide crap with VLF, or UHF, or really even S band very well. Those low frequency bands are good for DEW radars, but useless to guide a missile to a kill basket.

In the frequency ranges that will get you killed, say 8.4 GHz, or solidly in X band, the Have Blue is at a damn decent 0.001, or 100 to 1000 times smaller than the T-50. Yes, this is measured at the frontal aspect, and a set angle to the ground, as aircraft can't fly perfectly level at the transmitter. What is amazing to me if the Have Blue was good from 2.3 to 16 GHz, which as you know being a RCS expert is an exceptionally wide band to be stealthy in--S to Ku; tracking to terminal guidance.

So, one more time: it doesn't really matter jack squat if they are 1-0.1m² in VLF, UHF, or L bands. The really need to be much lower than those numbers, and in S, X, Ku or higher bands. Being crappy, on average, at X means you die in a fireball. And an average of 1-0.1m² in X, mi amigo, is crappy.

So yes, again, I did answer your question. We don't know the aspects or frequencies, but with such crappy numbers, it doesn't matter.

[Grey Ghost 531]

Have Blue? That's like so 40 years ago.

[Berkut]

Ok, uh, wow. yeah. You got me there. Way to make a personal attack there, appreciate the adult conversation.

View it as you want, but that doesn't make what i wrote untrue.

Have Blue has a 1m² RCS, huh? Well of course it does, everything sucks at VLF where the wavelength approaches a significant fraction of the length of the overall body. Problem is, you can't guide crap with VLF, or UHF, or really even S band very well. Those low frequency bands are good for DEW radars, but useless to guide a missile to a kill basket.

(shh, never mind the frequency)

/massive sarcasm.

In the frequency ranges that will get you killed, say 8.4 GHz, or solidly in X band, the Have Blue is at a damn decent 0.001, or 100 to 1000 times smaller than the T-50.

Sigh, just sigh. You are still unable to compare apples to apples because that doesn't fit your agenda.

So yes, again, I did answer your question. We don't know the aspects or frequencies, but with such crappy numbers, it doesn't matter.

We don't know jack s. That is my point. If we had real, tangible evidence of F-22's average RCS (compared to frequency and position, which is suspect is what T-50 number is as that is a true average number) then it would be an interesting comparison to make. We don't. We only have he said/she said defuse RCS number for minimum frontal projection for F-22/F-35. So comparing 0.001 etc numbers to 0.1-1m² is directly stupid. And hence claiming that T-50 is oh so horrible compared to have blue table above is disingenuous at best.

Have Blue? That's like so 40 years ago.

That was meant as illustration to show how big the variation is compared to frequency.

If you have more modern example which is equivalent for my table, lets say for F-22, feel free to post them, but expect police sirens shortly afterwards. Followed by a lengthy imprisonment.

[MarkW]

Sigh, just sigh. You are still unable to compare apples to apples because that doesn't fit your agenda.

My agenda? What, pray tell, would that be? I have no personal butt hurt involved in any of these platforms sucking or being great as I did not design them. As a US Taxpayer I'd want US platforms to be better, but wanting does not equal having. As for apples, there can be no apple to apple in your definition because one apple is made up.

We don't know jack s. That is my point. If we had real, tangible evidence of F-22's average RCS (compared to frequency and position, which is suspect is what T-50 number is as that is a true average number) then it would be an interesting comparison to make. We don't. We only have he said/she said defuse RCS number for minimum frontal projection for F-22/F-35. So comparing 0.001 etc numbers to 0.1-1m² is directly stupid. And hence claiming that T-50 is oh so horrible compared to have blue table above is disingenuous at best.

That was meant as illustration to show how big the variation is compared to frequency.

I'll try one more time. First, you can only speak for yourself about knowing jack. Second, you clearly don't know enough about RCS to interpret the table you posted. Being at 0.001 or so for that broad a band of meaningful radar frequencies (VLF is generally not meaningful) is absolutely, stunningly awesome. The range (0.001-0.0013m²) compared to frequencies anybody gives a crap about is TINY, not huge. By not understanding the table that supposedly proves your point, you are demonstrating ignorance of the basic subject (as opposed to being directly stupid). Third, by insisting on an "average" (imaginary apple) RCS for tactical fighters you are expressing ignorance (again as opposed to being directly stupid). Average RCS is a meaningless number as it is made up, by you. A strategic bomber, which would penetrate behind enemy radar lines and could potentially be lit up from the side, or rear and not be able to defend itself has to worry about all aspect stealth, but not "average". That is why the B-2 is considered the only all aspect stealth platform, though some of the UCAV designs are getting close.

Fighters generally approach targets from one way--within a set forward cone of the frontal aspect. Unless you are thinking of FireFox, missiles and bombs tend to launch forward (dogfighting missiles don't count since you are already in VFR). So the side RCS matters? What about the RCS in the planform alignment spikes? That matters too? HINT: NO IT DOESN'T.

Do you even understand what this made "average" means? Does average mean RCS when viewed straight on from the top or bottom when the jet is a big flat reflective plate? Do we need to do a spherical (or triple integral, if you like in spherical coordinate systems) integration of all RCS measurements at all frequencies? Let me stop you before you try to hard to answer--nobody does that, because it is meaningless.

More to the point, I do not read the Russian translation as you do. It could mean the made up by you "average" RCS is reduced to 1-0.1m². Or, it could mean the RCS is reduced by 1-0.1m², on average. As in the RCS measurements, in the frequencies anybody uses to track and kill jets, and from the aspects that make sense (frontal versus top down flat plate), are on average reduced in the range of 1 to 0.1m² from the Su-27 it is compared to.

Your insistence on "average" meaning what you want it to mean makes this discussion impossible. Sorry, but you clearly do not have a grasp of what any of these numbers mean, or why the frontal RCS for a platform that pretty much lives or dies by getting face shots off before being seen means that is an important number whereas this made up "average" number of yours is totally, utterly meaningless. Your lack of basic understanding of radar frequencies is really more than I can help you with.

If you have more modern example which is equivalent for my table, lets say for F-22, feel free to post them, but expect police sirens shortly afterwards. Followed by a lengthy imprisonment.

Hey, I take it back. You got one thing right. But then wouldn't it be meaningless as it would only be frontal?

[GreyGhost]

:taunt:/>

-Gregg

Edited January 29, 2014 by GreyGhost

[GreyGhost]

>>> Article <<<

>>> Another Article <<<

-Gregg

[MarkW]

Back to the news...

A disturbingly not bad Bill Sweetman piece (It is negative, though mostly based on the Dr. Gilmore job).

Aries Blog

[TaiidanTomcat]

Back to the news...

A disturbingly not bad Bill Sweetman piece (It is negative, though mostly based on the Dr. Gilmore job).

Aries Blog

Actually did work approaching journalism there. I'm disturbed

[11bee]

Update on the F-35 over on Flight Global. Mostly stuff that has already been hashed over before but one part I found to be of interest:

the F-35’s engineers are still struggling with overcoming the aircraft’s tendency for transonic roll-off and buffet, according to the report. The condition affects all supersonic fighters to some degree, but has appeared particularly acute on the carrier variant F-35C. Programme engineers have exhausted options for altering the flight control laws to compensate. Testing is still under way to decide if using leading edge spoilers on the F-35C will be necessary, the report says.

I thought the previous party line was that this issue would be cured by software modifications. Now we are talking about airframe alterations to the F-35C? If so, probably not good news from cost, schedule and weight standpoints.