F-35 news roundup

[MarkW]

For RCS management, they could have done a few things, but this assumes they had knowledge that was unavailable in the forties. None of the other RCS management techniques would require much if any space in the fuselage; many times this is done simply through tactics.

The YB-49 disappeared because of its shape only. At certain flight angles, nearly all the energy would be bounced off at an angle nowhere near the RADAR set, thus it becomes "invisible".

[11bee]

:D/>, That's an interesting thought Mark but what other RCS management would the Germans have had except perhaps for chaff? I doubt there would have been much room inside that fuselage for much else than what was there already having seen cutaways and photos of the disassembled aircraft. I've read that it almost fitted the 3X1,000 programme. Able to carry 1,000 kilos of bombs for 1,000 kilometers at 1,000 km/h. It didn't quite make the range requirement and those Jumos were known to be thirsty beasts so a lot of the available space would have been taken up with fuel. I know that radio based airborne radar management systems of the day required much larger airframes than the Horten. I was also aware of the fact that radar waves will penetrate through wood and other radar invisible substances like fibreglass and plastic etc.

From the ever reliable Wiki:

Germany also pioneered the first aircraft to use RAM during World War II, in the form of the Horten Ho 229. It used a carbon-impregnated plywood that would have made it very stealthy to Britain's primitive radar of the time. It is unknown if the carbon was incorporated for stealth reasons or because of Germany's metal shortage.

Those wacky Germans......

[MarkW]

I'm pretty sure the ever reliable wiki failed hard that time. Carbon impregnated plywood would likely be invisible to radar, not absorbent. All the RAM Germany was investing in were the heavy rubber coatings they used on das U-Boat.

[ross blackford]

:D, The Wiki article I read said that post war Reimar Horten had said that he'd mixed charcoal powder in with the glue used to glue the plywood sheets together in the belief that this would reduce the RCS by absorbing radar waves. He believed thatthis measure would shield the aircraft from the emiisions from the RAF's Chain Home early warning radars. Apparently in tests done by Northrop-Grumman engineers at the Smithsonian's Silver Hill facility they found that this did considerably attentuate the radar signal so there was apparently some value in this idea.

,

Ross.

[MarkW]

Except the Northrop model they built did not have a significant internal structure aside from the roll bars the used for strength. No Jumos or cockpit reflectors. While an interesting result, not exactly representative. Plus, at those long frequencies, you run into other issues.

Further, the testing that was done at Silver Hill was a few small components, measuring the surface conductivity. Conductivity is NOT the same idea as absorption; one redirects/controls/manages where the return goes, the other simply makes the return "go away". A perfect RAM material would have no return and be immune to bi static radars. A conductive surface can be shaped to control the return, but it will have a return.

[Trigger]

[riffraff]

Wow, I am suprised how big the F-35 actually is.

[Alan in Yorktown]

The cloaking device on the starboard jet works pretty well from this angle.

[Djack]

I'm excited that I get to see the F-35B demo again this weekend @ MCAS Beaufort, I had the privilege to see it last year @ MCAS Yuma. Then on Sunday I'll get to see, what I assume will be a F-35A on static at Tyndall, then staying in the panhandle for a few days and hoping to see many more flying around the area.

David

[Trigger]

The cloaking device on the starboard jet works pretty well from this angle.

[Trigger]

[Trigger]

[Trigger]

[MarkW]

News:

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

[11bee]

News:

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

Might be a bit telling that they don't go into any detail on who "won" those dogfights. I know that BFM is considered passe' these days but it would still be nice to know. I'd love to hear some comments from the guys in the F-16's.

On another note, glad the Marines are still pushing for IOC this summer. As long as their F-35B's are only used during daylight hours, all will be well.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/15/first-version-of-f35s-wont-outdo-a10-in-battlefield-capabilities.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1

[TaiidanTomcat]

Might be a bit telling that they don't go into any detail on who "won" those dogfights. I know that BFM is considered passe' these days but it would still be nice to know. I'd love to hear some comments from the guys in the F-16's.

This is like asking who "won" a test drive.

On another note, glad the Marines are still pushing for IOC this summer. As long as their F-35B's are only used during daylight hours, all will be well.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/15/first-version-of-f35s-wont-outdo-a10-in-battlefield-capabilities.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1

Somehow we will cope. We will just tell the kids we will fly low and slow like the A-10.

Edited April 18, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[MarkW]

Which A-10? The 1970s creation, or the one that has been upgraded continuously even through the developmental lifecycle of the F-35?

[11bee]

This is like asking who "won" a test drive.

Somehow we will cope. We will just tell the kids we will fly low and slow like the A-10.

But... but... from the article: The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director.

TT - are you saying that the good Col Trash took nothing away from these tests and has no way to analytically evaluate something like this? After all time and money being spent to run these evaluations, Trash still doesn't know "how the F-35 looks against an F-16 in the airspace"? What was the point of the tests then? Just to provide some cool sounding snippets for a PR release?

With regard to night vision capability (or lack thereof), glad to see the Marines will cope. Fighting at night is overrated anyway.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 11bee

[Trigger]

On another note, glad the Marines are still pushing for IOC this summer. As long as their F-35B's are only used during daylight hours, all will be well.

Other aircraft that started out their service as day fighters...

[11bee]

Other aircraft that started out their service as day fighters...

I hear you on that. Just expected that in the 30-40 years since those aircraft went into service, things would have improved just a bit. Pretty unreasonable to expect that, I know I tend to set the bar high.

But hey, between the hours of 0600 and 2000, those jets are going to be kicking some serious bad guy *ss!

Edited April 18, 2015 by 11bee

[Trigger]

You know how fanbois soil their shorts whenever a video pops up with a Flanker variant doing impossible flips and spins and turns, and then someone points out that yeah, that looks cool, but he's not weighed down with weapons or even a full tank of gas, so a combat configuration version won't do that and they get all butt hurt?

Well guess what; that "9G" F-16C loaded with missiles, bombs, tanks & targeting pods? It ain't getting past 5G. Sure, It can dump tanks and stores, but those targeting pods aren't going anywhere, and they have g-limits on them too. The F-15C is a 9G fighter, but the F-15E isn't. It can't drop its CFTs or targeting pods.

I hear you on that. Just expected that in the 30-40 years since those aircraft went into service, things would have improved just a bit. Pretty unreasonable to expect that, I know I tend to set the bar high.

But hey, between the hours of 0600 and 2000, those jets are going to be kicking some serious bad guy *ss!

Hey, if you can better write eight million lines of code and integrate all the software better, than have at it. In fact, PLEASE call me when you do because I've got a bunch of idiots up in Nashville who can't get the number of HTML errors on a simple home page alone down below 300 after nearly a year working on it.

[GreyGhost]

Actually, F/A-18As were conducting night combat missions well before the "Night Attack" F/A-18Cs came online a year or two later.

-Gregg

[TaiidanTomcat]

Actually, F/A-18As were conducting night combat missions well before the "Night Attack" F/A-18Cs came online a year or two later.

-Gregg

I assume radar bombing?

I havnt read what Gilmore said exactly but there was a time when pilots eveN whole crews bombed without night vision Using other methods to target.

[TaiidanTomcat]

But... but... from the article: The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director.

TT - are you saying that the good Col Trash took nothing away from these tests and has no way to analytically evaluate something like this? After all time and money being spent to run these evaluations, Trash still doesn't know "how the F-35 looks against an F-16 in the airspace"? What was the point of the tests then? Just to provide some cool sounding snippets for a PR release?

With regard to night vision capability (or lack thereof), glad to see the Marines will cope. Fighting at night is overrated anyway.

I assume it was to see "how it would look like" not a full on full production fight meant to declare a "winner"

I know, know marines going to war with not 100 percent perfect equipment? Sounds like science fiction...

http://www.military-today.com/apc/aav7_l1.jpg

its far better to keep the more night friendly harrier and crashing it into houses

Edited April 18, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[Trigger]

Actually, F/A-18As were conducting night combat missions well before the "Night Attack" F/A-18Cs came online a year or two later.

A year or two? Try six years and nearly 400 aircraft. The F/A-18A/B reached IOC in 1983. The C/D model didn't arrive until 1987; with it came the ability to use the infrared imaging Maverick air-to-ground missile. It wasn't until 1989 - six years after IOC - that Hornets started getting NAVFLIR, raster head-up display, night vision goggles, special cockpit lighting compatible with the night vision devices, a digital color moving map and an independent multipurpose color display.

F/A-18As role in the 1986 raid on Libya wasn't dropping bombs on targets that night; they performing SEAD missions against Libyan air defenses with AGM-88s. You don't need NVGs or NAVFLIR or any specialized night attack equipment for that.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Trigger