The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[BDF]

The big problem for the F-22 upgrade is not hardware but software. It is coded in machine language which is a rapidly dying language. So this will push up the cost of adding in new capability to the F-22 and eventually reach a date when the last of the machine language coders retire in which it won’t even be possible to sustain the aircraft.

What? No the F-22’s software is written in ADA which is a very common language which is not only the DOD’s primary language but is used on many civilian applications as well. The language underwent a major amendment as late as 2007 so I’m not sure I would characterize it as a dying language. I don’t think they’ve used machine level or assembler level coding since the 70s.

DAS like all optical seeker head systems can do as much as the software lets it. The current spec for F-35 is only detect friend or foe aircraft and missile. This is not the limitation of the system. The basic operating system for DAS is detect all moving targets and then classifies into the limited spec requirements and bin those that don't fit the target set. There is more than enough capability within the system to add new software like more capable target recognition for identifying make and model, stationary targets and other battlefield effects like gunfire and lasers. As long as there are enough pixels it can do it. Northrop Grumman are alluding to all sorts of special capabilities that they are finding they can do as they play with the system.

I don’t think I can agree with that. There are going to be limits on available pixilation based on aperture size and software can only do so much. Perhaps they can achieve this eventually at short range but I have yet to see any documentation or anecdotes attributing to an innate EID capability.

BDF

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What? No the F-22’s software is written in ADA which is a very common language which is not only the DOD’s primary language but is used on many civilian applications as well. The language underwent a major amendment as late as 2007 so I’m not sure I would characterize it as a dying language. I don’t think they’ve used machine level or assembler level coding since the 70s.

]

ADA is a dying language. How many new programmers learnt ADA in the last 10 years? By 2020 how many ADA language programmers will still be working? By 2030?

There are going to be limits on available pixilation based on aperture size and software can only do so much. Perhaps they can achieve this eventually at short range but I have yet to see any documentation or anecdotes attributing to an innate EID capability.

Absolutely like I said if you have the pixels you can process the image. Of course if the object is too far away then DAS even with extra software won't be able to process the image for EID and will just be limited to algorthims to identify type of object via analysis of its vector nature. But with enough resolution (and they are supposed to be gigapixel cameras) and the imagery analysis software you can do it.

 

[LowObservable]

Abe - Was there not an effort on the books to backfit JSF core processors to F-22?

Also, if you are telling me that an off-the-pylon, LOBL, HOBS+HMD launch is equivalent to what JSF wants to do, I don't buy it. It's infinitely simpler.

Also, I find your faith [in simulation] disturbing. I guess we will see what happens.

 

[sferrin]

What? No the F-22’s software is written in ADA which is a very common language which is not only the DOD’s primary language but is used on many civilian applications as well. The language underwent a major amendment as late as 2007 so I’m not sure I would characterize it as a dying language. I don’t think they’ve used machine level or assembler level coding since the 70s.

]

I hope you don't think they're running hardware with Windows.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe - Was there not an effort on the books to backfit JSF core processors to F-22?

The F-22 is designed to have core processor upgrades by fitting COTS components to milspec computers. F-35 goes one step further and just uses COTS computers as they are rugged enough. But there is no way you can port the software or hardware in an easy plug and play manner. Whatever gets upgraded to the F-22 will have to go through its laborious 1990s methodology.

Also, I find your faith [in simulation] disturbing. I guess we will see what happens.

If you're so disturbed by such faith in simulation I hope you realise that next time you fly in a A380 or a 787 or drive in a new series car. Simulation and modeling is the centerpiece of contemporary engineering. It is also extremely precise and follows a real world validation path as well. If you don't trust M&S you might as well go back to the 1970s...

 

[donnage99]

I’m not convinced. I’m not talking about individual fighter radars or even large aperture airborne arrays on AWACS platforms I’m talking about cooperative engagement techniques such as composite tracking, networked sensors/platforms, low frequency radars, ELINT etc. For the most part current fighter and small platform VLO defeat these threats individually but as the threat changes with further network integration and computing power increases tactical surprise and freedom of action will diminish. No longer will platforms and sensors share tracks but will instead share hits from VLO “flashes”, compiling a picture from these hits and cuing high power arrays or other sensors.

Current LO technology is not a cloaking device and fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 are usually considered to be four lobe designs where the major RCS spikes associated with planform alignment and other shaping techniques directs the majority of return energy. The key questions about current designs is how large each lobe is in intensity and how much scintillation each one has (how wide they are in bearing/azimuth). Also important questions are how robust are the designs to variation in frequencies and aspect changes in those various frequencies. Lower frequency radars are a different problem as they operate in frequencies which will cause some resonance in various shaping features and thus can be used for detection and cuing as they aren’t reliant on sniffing for VLO flashes and can simply detect LO targets outright.

I'm more convinced that by the time such magical system of system of system technology being realized, made applicable, practical, and effective, we'll be flying 6th generation aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

And the A380 and 787 experience (not to mention the A400M, or indeed the Eclipse) is why I wonder if our faith in modeling, simulation and knowledge-based engineering is not misplaced.

 

[Just call me Ray]

I'm more convinced that by the time such magical system of system of system technology being realized, made applicable, practical, and effective, we'll be flying 6th generation aircraft.

That may be what would define a 6th generation fighter, in the same way stealth defines a 5th generation fighter.

 

[quellish]

This IS tail hook fairing on Raptor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNSaKBjtoNA

Photo (c) Michael Durning @ Airliners.Net

I thought that was for making more Raptors?

 

[flateric]

I thought that was for making more Raptors?

;D

 

[voidmage]

“It will be the first high angle off bore sight (HOBS) fighter and as such will be able to defeat ANY and I mean ANY (F-22 included) preceding fighter in a within visual range (WVR) 'dogfight'. It will do this because its missiles will do the turning enabling it to retain high energy and engage targets at up to 180 degrees off boresight (ie full spherical engagement).”


This is the more spreaded platitude i hear on JSF (ostensibly generated by the DAS video) but is also the opinion more likely to be disappointed by reality.
The reason for that is connected with the simple attestation of aerodinamics physics laws in a WVR engagement.
The video show a missile who make a laughable,(but i accept it simply for which it is: a colourful representation)180 degrees turn to intercept a chasing fighter; the problem of this type of “divulging”(cleverly misleading)product,is who it mask often unavoidable truths: in this istance inertia,lift and drag forces!
THIS missile,indeed, travel at JSF SPEED!! and is fired WVR where distances between involved opponents are very reduced(in the majority of cases less than 3,3KM and with involved speeds in media comprised between 390 and 578 knots, source: J. J. M. Roessingh” Explorative study and modelling of modern within visual range engagements”[2005] ).
This missile,in order only to change the sense of its vector, MUST PREVIOUSLY dissipate its launch platform( JSF), relative direction, “forward”energy,and at the distances involved in a dog fight(up showed) vs a manoeuvrable (or worst supermanoeuvrable) tailing opponents with high power-to-weight ratio,low wing-loading and (2 or 3D)trust vectoring this lead invariably to a missile wasted and,very probably, to a F-35 descending in flame(likely the missile cannot not even complete its turn before its intended target has surpassed its attack’s envelop,conversely the opponent’s missile can use(add) its launching aircraft energy to its advantage).
Also a amateur can easly realize who a tail-mounted radar and rear-firing missiles....a easy, OLD solution,(unfortunately not compatible with a “stealth”configuration and who,anyhow,has never canceled or also only eroded, decisive, enormous advantages of manoeuvrability WVR)in the SAME,IDENTICAL situations depicted in the video are DOZEN of times more efficients.
The only likely situation at wich this video can outwardly refere is a "last chance" shot in the high-speed “neutral pass”(merge),a sort of “semi BVR”ultimate attempt before merge, indipendent from relative target’s angle of approach(and,also in this istance,a similar “almost BVR shot” by a equally Optical locator system-equipped approaching enemy has MUCH,MUCH more chance of success (this not even considering missile’s PK significant erosion by part of the most manoeuvrable aircraft).

 

[GTX]

An interesting rebuttal of some of the F-35 criticisms can be found in the Williams Foundation latest paper on JSF:

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/research/download/FvsFiction%20Final%2024Mar1.pdf

Regards,

Greg

 

[lantinian]

Indeed interesting read. Thanks for sharing.
Generaly I tend to agree with the overal theme of the article but I have to note that some publicly available figures have been distorted in F-35 favor and there are some very fundamental mistakes that can get you to doubth the whole thing.

the F-22 .... is optimised for the role, with its all-aspect stealth, supercruise, and
complementary avionics and weapons systems reportedly generating an exchange (kill/loss)
ratio of 20:1 in exercises and USAF simulations.

Wasn't that 30:1?

re BWR combat

The F-22 will carry more AIM-9s than the F-35, but
the F-35’s will be a later (i.e., better) version.

No comment

Simulations indicate that the F-35 will have a kill/loss ratio of around 8:1 against every competitor other than the F-22.

Wasn't that 4:1, and wasn't that against a SU-30MKI type of treat?

BTW, on Monday 6th April the Obama administration will announce the cancelation of several major defense projects. I have a bad feeling that one will be the F-22 especially after reading this article.

 

[sferrin]

“It will be the first high angle off bore sight (HOBS) fighter and as such will be able to defeat ANY and I mean ANY (F-22 included) preceding fighter in a within visual range (WVR) 'dogfight'. It will do this because its missiles will do the turning enabling it to retain high energy and engage targets at up to 180 degrees off boresight (ie full spherical engagement).”


This is the more spreaded platitude i hear on JSF (ostensibly generated by the DAS video) but is also the opinion more likely to be disappointed by reality.
The reason for that is connected with the simple attestation of aerodinamics physics laws in a WVR engagement.
The video show a missile who make a laughable,(but i accept it simply for which it is: a colourful representation)180 degrees turn to intercept a chasing fighter; the problem of this type of “divulging”(cleverly misleading)product,is who it mask often unavoidable truths: in this istance inertia,lift and drag forces!
THIS missile,indeed, travel at JSF SPEED!! and is fired WVR where distances between involved opponents are very reduced(in the majority of cases less than 3,3KM and with involved speeds in media comprised between 390 and 578 knots, source: J. J. M. Roessingh” Explorative study and modelling of modern within visual range engagements”[2005] ).
This missile,in order only to change the sense of its vector, MUST PREVIOUSLY dissipate its launch platform( JSF), relative direction, “forward”energy,and at the distances involved in a dog fight(up showed) vs a manoeuvrable (or worst supermanoeuvrable) tailing opponents with high power-to-weight ratio,low wing-loading and (2 or 3D)trust vectoring this lead invariably to a missile wasted and,very probably, to a F-35 descending in flame(likely the missile cannot not even complete its turn before its intended target has surpassed its attack’s envelop,conversely the opponent’s missile can use(add) its launching aircraft energy to its advantage).
Also a amateur can easly realize who a tail-mounted radar and rear-firing missiles....a easy, OLD solution,(unfortunately not compatible with a “stealth”configuration and who,anyhow,has never canceled or also only eroded, decisive, enormous advantages of manoeuvrability WVR)in the SAME,IDENTICAL situations depicted in the video are DOZEN of times more efficients.
The only likely situation at wich this video can outwardly refere is a "last chance" shot in the high-speed “neutral pass”(merge),a sort of “semi BVR”ultimate attempt before merge, indipendent from relative target’s angle of approach(and,also in this istance,a similar “almost BVR shot” by a equally Optical locator system-equipped approaching enemy has MUCH,MUCH more chance of success (this not even considering missile’s PK significant erosion by part of the most manoeuvrable aircraft).

After you take your feet out of your mouth you should go check out the AIM-9X and Python vids showing pretty close to what's being described here. I remember back in the day one of the AIM-9X contenders (was Raytheon's- it lost) doing a 180 and the photo showed both the F-16 and the missile in the same frame- with the missile headed in the opposite direction of the launch aircraft, ie. to the rear.

 

[donnage99]

Voidmage,

There are 2 scenarios depicted in the video. The first scenario is eliminating surprises where the f-35 is being tailed by another fighter. This scenario is well understood to be BVR, or semi-BVR, or whatever people want to call it, where the missile's range are still out-ranged by the DAS sensors, though short enough of the distance that the enemy can use passive sensors to track the f-35 and vise versa (any longer than that is a different story since it is a different scenario using different sensors and different approach from both the enemy and f-35). Of course, it is beyond visual range, because the enemy would have shot down the f-35 if they manage to approach the f-35 at that visual walking distance as shown in the vid. I don't think anybody here is believing the scenario of the tailing airplane to be the typical closed-in WVR. The second scenario is, as shown, classic dogfight, where both aircraft are well within visual range and extensive and dramatic maneuvers come into play.

In the first scenario, the problem arises as you have noted, is geometry. The missile shot of the enemy tailing the f-35 has much more advantage in term of geometry than the missile shot by f-35 that would have to make a U-turn toward its intended target. The enemy's missile also enjoys the PK advantage of its launching platform. True! However, there are advantages of the f-35's missile too. That is the enemy is approaching toward the f-35, while the f-35 is distancing from the enemy. This has major impact on both geometry and PK of the missile. It's really simple math, once the f-35's missile has made the u-turn, its speed and approaching distance would add up with those of the approaching aircraft to create its huge no escape zone (speed/approaching distance of missile + speed/approaching distance of enemy aircraft), while the opposite would apply for the f-35 as it is distancing from the enemy and its missile (speed/approaching distance of missile - speed/ approaching distance of enemy aircraft). Another thing, though not so significant in my opinion, is that the f-35's missile is making a u-turn upward, increasing its altitude which has positive effect on its missile's PK. This is not to say that the enemy wouldn't be able to do the same by increasing the altitude of the missile. However, I'm pointing that out is that the altitude it gains will somewhat compensate for the energy and geometry wasted of having the missile doing a U-turn. If the f-35 wants to extend its missile NEZ, it will simple doing a climb so the missile would be shot in a vertical or near vertical position, where the missile will no longer have to do a full U-turn.

In any case, I doubt a scenario where a conventional non stealthy aircraft would be able to tail an VLO with superior 360 degree situational awareness f-35. If anyone is tailing anyone, it should be the f-35 tailing its enemies with its superior RCS and IR reduction.

In the second scenario of honest closed-in dogfight, I believe that in this case, there are logical assumptions that we must take, which is that such scenario takes place at a time line where the f-35 would already be equipped with WVR missiles internally, probably aim-9x and its given LOAL capabilities for the DAS to work with. Aim-9x has huge HOBS, so the argument that once it completes its U-turn, the super maneuverable enemy would be out of its attack's envelop is irrelevant. Secondly, aim-9x being able to do 180 degree is certainly not laughable. While the enemy aircraft has to struggle to bring itself to a direction that the enemy target is within its missile's off-boresight envelop, the f-35 suffers none of that. There's no doubt the vastly superior difference of fifth generation WVR missile agility in comparison to any existing airframe. So instead doing the maneuver, the f-35 exploit its missile's superior agility to the max. Conversely, the f-35, without having to turn and burn, suffers none of the geometry disadvantage and energy disadvantage to try to escape the enemy's missile, as the f-35's direction is not facing toward the enemy's missile.

The DAS WVR air to air capability is built upon the understand of future dogfight will almost ensure mutual kills. By reserving geometry and energy advantages for an escape while fully capable of launching an attack at the same time, the f-35 will have vastly higher chance of coming out alive of a classic dogfight in comparison of other airframes that are built upon obsolete combat doctrine (something f-22 could not enjoy due to its being envisioned back in the 80's).

Also a amateur can easly realize who a tail-mounted radar and rear-firing missiles....a easy, OLD solution,(unfortunately not compatible with a “stealth”configuration and who,anyhow,has never canceled or also only eroded, decisive, enormous advantages of manoeuvrability WVR)in the SAME,IDENTICAL situations depicted in the video are DOZEN of times more efficients.

Due to the sheer amount of technical and practical challenges of a rear-firing missiles, the system is certainly not easy. It's certain OLD, but not old SOLUTION, because it solves nothing while creating a bunch of other problems.

 

[pesholito]

Plenty of good and interesting videos here:
http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_video.htm#

 

[LowObservable]

The Foundation paper says nothing new. Who, one wonders, are they?

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/media/download/WILLIAMS%20FOUNDATION%20LAUNCH4.pdf

"As stated in our Charter the Williams Foundation is an independently funded not-for-profit organisation. The Board therefore invites sponsorship from individuals and organisations wishing to contribute constructively to forward looking Australian defence policy.
We had hoped to obtain some start-up funding from Defence. However, that has as yet not happened. Luckily for us two defence-related companies have made generous offers of support.
"Chemring Australia, a manufacturer of defence pyrotechnics and air, land and sea based decoys is one of our two major sponsors. The second is Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F22 and the F35."

 

[Creative]

Anyone know when full STOVL tests are scheduled?

 

[voidmage]

After you take your feet out of your mouth you should go check out the AIM-9X and Python vids showing pretty close to what's being described here. I remember back in the day one of the AIM-9X contenders (was Raytheon's- it lost) doing a 180 and the photo showed both the F-16 and the missile in the same frame- with the missile headed in the opposite direction of the launch aircraft, ie. to the rear.
[/quote]

I have jonined this site because a member had assured who it is frequented by "no amateurs",but i must attest,sadly,who this is absolutely untrue.

Video of AIM 9X and Pyton? I hope for you who this is not the reference for your opinions,before today i have never watched this type of video..i prefere books,but i must admit it who is very amusing, is like watch a comedy (above all this QF4 G, and the primitiveness of the falsification at 1:35-1:40 ..ah ah..simply fantastic!!...ah ah ah ).

One question sferrin: have you EVER readed a SCIENTIFIC book on modern rocketry ,avionics and mathematical modelling of air engagement?I think....not.
If you don’t take offence,i dare to suggest to you some(i dodge the russian and chinese scientist authors[with great sadness,because among the best on the wole world come from this nations]only to evade your possible suspects ).
For the foundations of aerodynamycs i recommend to you : Anderson, John D. (2007). "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics"(4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.(it is a "staple",simply stupendous).
For physics of maneuvring targets : "Simple parameter estimation technique in manoeuvring target tracking system"Guu, J.-A.; Wei, C.-H(2003).(is present also a PDF extract from chapter 3 on internet), "Aerodynamic Modelling for High Alpha Manoeuvres" by T. G. Pai(2005) , "Time Accurate Simulations of High Alpha Aerodynamics"by Y. Le Moigne; A. Rizzi (2006).
For statistical models of missile PK distribution: Raj Jain "Analytical Modeling of Beyond Visual Range Air Combatat"(this is present also on internet at : www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse567-08/ftp/combat/index.html , if you can and...rely on plain numbers, read also the “original”more complex work: J.S. Przemieniecki, Mathematical Methods In Defense Analyses,3rd Ed(2001) or,better, S.Vernikov ),this is interesting because some NEANDERTHAL(like a certain Ozzy Blizzard pointed to me by a member of this site) believe who the graphic in “The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat” at ausairpower site is a Carlo Kopp's creation!! and also....WRONGED!!!! AH AH HA simply INCREDIBLE!!!
For rocketry i suggest: J.S.Sterensen "The Physics of modern missiles"( 2007)- read carefully chapter 7 and your “enthusiastic”attitude ,induced outwardly by absurd platitudes,go instantly out of window-
For the WVR engagement question i suggest Costes,Onera,Sthal “Investigation of thrust vectoring and post stall capability in modern air combat” II edition (2006)-the extract i have attached is from this book,from this you can easly realize who: position of launching’s platform and time elapsing from single “segment”of action in a WVR engagement,are elements impossible to substitute,and the fucntion describing them and their effects on the outcome are neither linear and nor even “normal” (Gaussian)!!- or also Hudson, Santini : “Theoretic approach to dynamics of close range air combat”(2002).

I give to you also two news: For the 2010 year-end, Vympel will complete Izdeliye 760 close range missile, a close counterpart to Sidewinder AIM-9X missiles(large production at half of 2011) and for 2013 : Izdeliye 300 (K-MD) close to intermedium range missile ,intended to LARGELY outperform ASRAAM and AIM-9X (it has the same LOAL feature and a true 360 degrees engagement envelop but a substantial highter PK,more range and agility than its competitors thanks to a state of art FPA [focal-plane array]seeker ,a innovative “three-channel gas-dynamic control unit” and a without equal “hybrid slaved control system”).
At a question maked by a journalist on the common opinion of the uselessness of manoeuvrability in future close range combat vs missiles so advanced like that designed by its same equipe,Peter Vasilev(chief of the Vympel - Joint Stock Company - design department)has answered with a smile and: “Ah ah , please leave similar groundless platitudes to -not insider- ” ..…..this is absolutely paradigmatic.
Give up this type of video,believe me. If you have passion, read ,read and read from heterogeneous,SCIENTIFIC sources and you will discover like me who the “all field”,large western technological superiority,is simply..... a reassuring fable (this type of sad disillusion,unfortunately, ever accompany the knowledge).At the beginning it is hard (for me this was a trauma...at the time i was very proud of our [MY in a deep sense] scientific superiority),but ,after, you learn to appreciate intelligence and genius in a theoretical construction like in a applicative realization independently from the nationality or alignment of its maker and will feel disgust for shallow platitude and for intellectual dishonesty. Best regards.

 

[sferrin]

I have jonined this site because a member had assured who it is frequented by "no amateurs",but i must attest,sadly,who this is absolutely untrue.

Video of AIM 9X and Pyton? I hope for you who this is not the reference for your opinions,before today i have never watched this type of video..i prefere books,but i must admit it who is very amusing, is like watch a comedy (above all this QF4 G, and the primitiveness of the falsification at 1:35-1:40 ..ah ah..simply fantastic!!...ah ah ah ).

One question sferrin: have you EVER readed a SCIENTIFIC book on modern rocketry ,avionics and mathematical modelling of air engagement?I think....not.
If you don’t take offence,i dare to suggest to you some(i dodge the russian and chinese scientist authors[with great sadness,because among the best on the wole world come from this nations]only to evade your possible suspects ).
For the foundations of aerodynamycs i recommend to you : Anderson, John D. (2007). "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics"(4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.(it is a "staple",simply stupendous).
For physics of maneuvring targets : "Simple parameter estimation technique in manoeuvring target tracking system"Guu, J.-A.; Wei, C.-H(2003).(is present also a PDF extract from chapter 3 on internet), "Aerodynamic Modelling for High Alpha Manoeuvres" by T. G. Pai(2005) , "Time Accurate Simulations of High Alpha Aerodynamics"by Y. Le Moigne; A. Rizzi (2006).
For statistical models of missile PK distribution: Raj Jain "Analytical Modeling of Beyond Visual Range Air Combatat"(this is present also on internet at : www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse567-08/ftp/combat/index.html , if you can and...rely on plain numbers, read also the “original”more complex work: J.S. Przemieniecki, Mathematical Methods In Defense Analyses,3rd Ed(2001) or,better, S.Vernikov ),this is interesting because some NEANDERTHAL(like a certain Ozzy Blizzard pointed to me by a member of this site) believe who the graphic in “The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat” at ausairpower site is a Carlo Kopp's creation!! and also....WRONGED!!!! AH AH HA simply INCREDIBLE!!!
For rocketry i suggest: J.S.Sterensen "The Physics of modern missiles"( 2007)- read carefully chapter 7 and your “enthusiastic”attitude ,induced outwardly by absurd platitudes,go instantly out of window-
For the WVR engagement question i suggest Costes,Onera,Sthal “Investigation of thrust vectoring and post stall capability in modern air combat” II edition (2006)-the extract i have attached is from this book,from this you can easly realize who: position of launching’s platform and time elapsing from single “segment”of action in a WVR engagement,are elements impossible to substitute,and the fucntion describing them and their effects on the outcome are neither linear and nor even “normal” (Gaussian)!!- or also Hudson, Santini : “Theoretic approach to dynamics of close range air combat”(2002).

I give to you also two news: For the 2010 year-end, Vympel will complete Izdeliye 760 close range missile, a close counterpart to Sidewinder AIM-9X missiles(large production at half of 2011) and for 2013 : Izdeliye 300 (K-MD) close to intermedium range missile ,intended to LARGELY outperform ASRAAM and AIM-9X (it has the same LOAL feature and a true 360 degrees engagement envelop but a substantial highter PK,more range and agility than its competitors thanks to a state of art FPA [focal-plane array]seeker ,a innovative “three-channel gas-dynamic control unit” and a without equal “hybrid slaved control system”).
At a question maked by a journalist on the common opinion of the uselessness of manoeuvrability in future close range combat vs missiles so advanced like that designed by its same equipe,Peter Vasilev(chief of the Vympel - Joint Stock Company - design department)has answered with a smile and: “Ah ah , please leave similar groundless platitudes to -not insider- ” ..…..this is absolutely paradigmatic.
Give up this type of video,believe me. If you have passion, read ,read and read from heterogeneous,SCIENTIFIC sources and you will discover like me who the “all field”,large western technological superiority,is simply..... a reassuring fable (this type of sad disillusion,unfortunately, ever accompany the knowledge).At the beginning it is hard (for me this was a trauma...at the time i was very proud of our [MY in a deep sense] scientific superiority),but ,after, you learn to appreciate intelligence and genius in a theoretical construction like in a applicative realization independently from the nationality or alignment of its maker and will feel disgust for shallow platitude and for intellectual dishonesty. Best regards.

You have no idea what I have or haven't read. You obviously have no idea what I'm referring to so how about investigating it before trying to impress us (and failing) with how smart you think you are? You jumped right out of the gate with your first post basically telling people how impossible something is when it's ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED and then you follow up with a lot of long-winded nationalism and a healthy dose of insult. You end up coming across like a childish, borish, wannabe. The board is filled with people who are on the ball. You do not appear to be one of them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Give up this type of video,believe me. If you have passion, read ,read and read from heterogeneous,SCIENTIFIC sources and you will discover like me who the “all field”,large western technological superiority,is simply..... a reassuring fable (this type of sad disillusion,unfortunately, ever accompany the knowledge).

The papers you refer to are simply mathematical models of presumptuous situations. That's what models do. For example:

"It is assumed, in a one-to-one air combat with gunnery weapons, that the outcome only depends on the relative situation" (From "Investigation of thrust vectoring and post stall capability in modern air combat" that is attached above)

What does that have to do with HOBS, LOAL missile engagement? Absolutely freaking nothing. I'm sure the authors of said models would be rolling in their graves to see them presented in such a way here.

Further there is no doubt far more Russian and Chinese aerospace engineers publishing studies per engineering capita than American aerospace engineers. Why? because the American's actually have jobs working on new air combat systems. These new systems will eventually redefine the academic models used to analyze the last generation of air combat. Of course there are other models for contemporary air combat but they are classified.

But don't let any of that stand in the way of whatever it is you want to believe.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Voidmage, the best way to make a good impression here is to contribute in a positive way to discussions. If you disagree with someone, do it calmly, with supporting evidence, and the discussion will be productive.

Providing links to lots of studies is a good idea, but then in the same post asserting that Vympel are going to pull some magical rabbit out of the hat rather damages your credibility.

Izdeliyie 760 is a refurbished R-73 with new (non-imaging, IIRC) seeker and improved software. Much like the K-74/K-74M they've been promising since 1992.

Izdeliyie 300 appears to be the old K-30 design which has been treading water since the collapse of the USSR due to non-availability of several key technologies. I'd hold judgement on it peformance until they've actually built and fired some.

Scott, you are troll-baiting again. Please don't.

Topic is locked for a bit so everyone can calm down.

 

[Orionblamblam]

A year or more ago I had bookmarked a website - as memory serves, an official JSF or Lockheed site - that had pretty good diagrams of all the F-35 variants. Now for the life of me I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

NOTE: Diagrams as in B&W line drawings.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Update: I found where the diagrams *used* to be:
http://images.teamjsf.com

Sadly, the website is gone, and the archive.org cache of it is stripepd of images. Did anybody save the diagrams by any chance?

 

[sferrin]

There use to be two "official" JSF sites. "TeamJSF.com" and "F-35 Lightning II Program". The former croaked several months ago and links directly back to a page on LM's site now.

You talkin' about these things?

 

[flateric]

Don't panic
http://rapidshare.de/files/46915171/Drawings_and_Schematics.rar.html

 

[Orionblamblam]

You talkin' about these things?

No. The "teamjsf" site had a series of good quality line drawings, pretty similar to the F-35 drawings I've got for sale:

But the TeamJSF site had all the variants, including the F-35C carrier based version (which is what I need). I coulda swore I'd saved 'em, but for the life of me I can't find 'em, and now they're gone.

 

[flateric]

I know what you are talking about, Scott
check the link above

plus some more http://rapidshare.de/files/46915209/Model_240.rar.html

let's call it 'distributed data storage'

 

[Orionblamblam]

Don't panic
http://rapidshare.de/files/46915171/Drawings_and_Schematics.rar.html

Did those come from the TeamJSF site? I vaguely seem to think I recall those drawings being slightly mroe detailed (dimensions and such). Nevertheless... THANKS! These are much better than what I had on hand.

 

[flateric]

they are exactly from there, unresized, as is
there were never dimensions on them
if you want, I have some collection of various stages - since iteration 220

 

[Orionblamblam]

they are exactly from there, unresized, as is

OK. My memory must be going gray and fuzzy with extreme age and lack of use. THANKS!

Note: these are needed for the "US Navy Stealth" article.

update: using flaterics kindly provided diagrams, here's an incredibly preliminary timeline of US Navy aircraft (or aircraft pitched to the Navy) designed for stealth. The majority of these drawings are just scanned images that were cheaply converted into CAD and will need to be completely redrawn. Also need to add the recent UCAV concepts as well as the Tomcat II at some point.

 

[lantinian]

Thank you Grigo for sharing those

 

[Creative]

Thank you for sharing those flateric, I've never seen most of those before.

 

[CFE]

Anybody know where I can find a 3-view of the X-35C prototype? It will be helpful when I finish my Italeri X-35 kit as the naval variant (although any way you built it, it'll be a bear. The kit's an odd combo of X-35 prototype and F-35 production features.)

 

[flateric]

last edition of Jay Miller's 'X-Planes' has a decent original 3-views of X-35A from LM
never saw X-35C
Scott has (X)F-35 drawings (unclear iteration) for sale with dimensions data - really good stuff http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/adwg21ani.gif

Italeri kit would be made to X-35 only with a combo of saws and Milliput

 

[Lampshade111]

I know I am bringing this topic back from the dead, so sorry about that.

Personally my greatest concern about the F-35 is related to the nozzle configuration. I have no doubt the F-135's LOAN nozzle is an improvement over most designs, but I still believe the F-35 should have been designed and built with a 2D thrust vectoring nozzle, similar to that of the F-22. I don't know how this could have been accomplished with the VTOL F-35B however.

Regarding thrust vectoring, I suppose such a version of the current LOAN nozzle could be developed and fitted to the F-35, and that would provide the advantage of horizontal thrust vectoring. However that won't do anything to correct the limited stealth features of the F-35's rear quadrant.

 

[donnage99]

why is there saw tooth on the inlet? I got from jsf.mil. The other pix of the same aircraft did not have this feature (this is aa-1 I believe).

 

[sferrin]

That's the leading edge of the barn door that is the nose gear door.

 

[McColm]

Hi Guys,
I think the nozzles came from the Yak-141, amongst the rest of the concept?

 

[sferrin]

Hi Guys,
I think the nozzles came from the Yak-141, amongst the rest of the concept?

Ah, no.