Read the forum code of contact
By: - 2nd January 2015 at 18:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If we can't talk about economics and engineering and stay on technical, maybe we can talk about the Chinese "Anti-sealth" radar?
"According to a Nov. 10 China-based article in the Global Times, a Shandong Province-based JY-26 recently monitored an F-22 flying to South Korea. Separated by the Yellow Sea, Shandong’s coastline is 400 kilometers from Kunsan Air Base and Osan Air Base, South Korea."
By: - 2nd January 2015 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If we can't talk about economics and engineering and stay on technical, maybe we can talk about the Chinese "Anti-sealth" radar?"According to a Nov. 10 China-based article in the Global Times, a Shandong Province-based JY-26 recently monitored an F-22 flying to South Korea. Separated by the Yellow Sea, Shandong’s coastline is 400 kilometers from Kunsan Air Base and Osan Air Base, South Korea."
It is quite possible the F-22 in question had its reflector on as an F-22 would never fly a non-mission route without it so that air traffic controllers can see it in their radars. Safe for navigation and all that.
By: - 2nd January 2015 at 20:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Official estimate of programme cost for F-35 as of March 2014 was $332 bn, including development & procurement.
Initially, the planes were also expected to be operational by 2012. The program has also seen cost overruns. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the cost of F-35 development has risen from an estimated $306 billion in 2001 to an estimated $390 billion now.
By: - 2nd January 2015 at 22:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is quite possible the F-22 in question had its reflector on as an F-22 would never fly a non-mission route without it so that air traffic controllers can see it in their radars. Safe for navigation and all that.
a reflector is irrelevant in VHF/UHF that the radar was operating in
By: - 2nd January 2015 at 22:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Luneburg lenses generally increase x-band reflection most, but are broadband reflectors. So, yes an f-22 with a lens will have an increased RCS across all wavelengths.
The Chinese claim is plausible if you consider- the lens, the fact that the F-22's operating across the yellow sea probably had DT's. And it's easier to find your target when you know where to look. Cue the "stealth is dead" crowd.
By: - 2nd January 2015 at 22:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Initially, the planes were also expected to be operational by 2012. The program has also seen cost overruns. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the cost of F-35 development has risen from an estimated $306 billion in 2001 to an estimated $390 billion now.
My figures come directly from the US GAO. You're quoting Fox News reporting on what I think is the same GAO report. I trust the original, not what Fox News says about it. Do you trust Rupert Murdoch?
The GAO says that development cost has gone up from about $40 billion to about $60 billion. (I can't be bothered to check the exact figure), & the total of development & procurement to $332 bn, which I calculated to be an increase of 73% - all inflation-adjusted to 2014 prices.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 00:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has this been posted here yet?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234268[/ATTACH]
OK the F-35 is no F-16, that's pretty straightforward. But that's an 88% increase in fuel consumption ie fuel cost... with that in mind it wouldn't surprise me if the cost per flight hour will be in the same F-16 plus 88% range.
Combat radius of 600 nm seems plausible.
Difference in empty weight is 50 to 60% btw...
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 01:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
awesome find @eagle, and we need not second guess what the future is,
when speed is not the top priority
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
awesome find @eagle, and we need not second guess what the future is
It was always meant to be really.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 01:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
a reflector is irrelevant in VHF/UHF that the radar was operating in
High time to update your dated knowledge about China.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 03:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
awesome find @eagle, and we need not second guess what the future is,
when speed is not the top priority
Oh yeah... And let's bring back the Spitfires.
Turbines, by design, are very efficient engines and their consumption is mostly related to their range of power at equal technology. And how funny it is, their power fulfill a requirement in line with their user...policy.
This twisted interpretation goes nowhere.
You're not going to counter a J10 with a Reaper ! Damn, Is this still an aviation Forum ? Can't we keep in 2015 the level of discussion above that level ?!
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 08:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
obviously you need a jet fighter to do jet fighter's job. The illustration is there more to illustrate that, for small nations who can't afford more than one type of fighter (and not in huge numbers), the fuel cost might be a problem especially if one expects it to fly for the next 30 years or so, considering the increase in fuel prices to be expected over that period
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
not just small nations, US is leading the way with ever increasing numbers and demands
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 12:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If we can't talk about economics and engineering and stay on technical, maybe we can talk about the Chinese "Anti-sealth" radar?
What part of "talk about the program" was unclear? Even if the OP had not offered explicit instructions -- which of course he did -- it is terribly discourteous to introduce marginally relevant topics in the early stages of a thread.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 12:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh yeah... And let's bring back the Spitfires.Turbines, by design, are very efficient engines and their consumption is mostly related to their range of power at equal technology. And how funny it is, their power fulfill a requirement in line with their user...policy.
This twisted interpretation goes nowhere.
You're not going to counter a J10 with a Reaper ! Damn, Is this still an aviation Forum ? Can't we keep in 2015 the level of discussion above that level ?!
One will be able to within a few years. Drones and rpa's are the considered future now. It may change by for now it is.
Which is another potential threat to the completion of the f-35 order list vis a vis price.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is quite possible the F-22 in question had its reflector on as an F-22 would never fly a non-mission route without it so that air traffic controllers can see it in their radars. Safe for navigation and all that.
There is more than just making the matter of making the aircraft safe in terms of navigation and air-traffic control. It is also important to prevent anyone obtaining useful data on the aircraft's radar cross-section in all radar bands. So we can assume that unless flying a combat mission, the F-22 is fitted with active and/or passive RCS-augmentation measures that will provide a high signature in all radar bands.
a reflector is irrelevant in VHF/UHF that the radar was operating in
Why do you say that a passive reflector is irrelevant?
High time to update your dated knowledge about China.
An interesting news story - but the fact remains (as I have pointed out in other postings) that the US does not make its low-RCS aircraft or missiles available to the radar design teams to other nations to participate in radar tracking trials. So whether it is the Russian, Chinese, or Ruritanian radar industry that is claiming to have developed a stealth-defeating radar, we must take the claim with a pinch of salt. The best that can be said is that the radar has been designed to track whatever its developers think is the likely radar signature of a US stealth platform. That estimated RCS may or may not be correct.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While a Reaper certainly will not match an eight ship J-10 formation, I wouldn't give up on the idea that two F-35A in formation with 2-5 mules couldn't mop the sky against the same formation. Force enablers are just reaching testing phase and only the tip of the iceberg will be revealed until its necessary.
One problem with stealth is the perception of it by the other guy. The F-35 is to opposing forces what Dirty Harry is to the common movie criminal. The latter just doesn't realize it until they suck air through a fatal chest wound.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 19:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What part of "talk about the program" was unclear? Even if the OP had not offered explicit instructions -- which of course he did -- it is terribly discourteous to introduce marginally relevant topics in the early stages of a thread.
Since the main concept of the program is based on "passive stealth" over others concerns, it seems logic to me to talk about possible obsolescence of this concept in the coming years...
If we can't evoke some possible engineering faults or even "over budget" and a possible problem with the original concept, why not change the title of the topic by "F-35 the best fighter in the world (but we can eventually talk about schedule problem)" ?
:D
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 19:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is more than just making the matter of making the aircraft safe in terms of navigation and air-traffic control. It is also important to prevent anyone obtaining useful data on the aircraft's radar cross-section in all radar bands. So we can assume that unless flying a combat mission, the F-22 is fitted with active and/or passive RCS-augmentation measures that will provide a high signature in all radar bands.
Yes of course you are right.
An interesting news story - but the fact remains (as I have pointed out in other postings) that the US does not make its low-RCS aircraft or missiles available to the radar design teams to other nations to participate in radar tracking trials. So whether it is the Russian, Chinese, or Ruritanian radar industry that is claiming to have developed a stealth-defeating radar, we must take the claim with a pinch of salt. The best that can be said is that the radar has been designed to track whatever its developers think is the likely radar signature of a US stealth platform. That estimated RCS may or may not be correct.
If I were making radars I'd make a full scale replica of the plane of interest (22,35) and test the heck out of it. Obviously I would not know the exact fabrication secrets but that way I'd have an upper limit and then start taking away.
By: - 3rd January 2015 at 21:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since the main concept of the program is based on "passive stealth" over others concerns, it seems logic to me to talk about possible obsolescence of this concept in the coming years...
In fact the potential for new radar and other detection technologies to erode the effectiveness of LO shaping and materials measures strikes me as such an important topic that it deserves its own thread -- and that is the point. You shouldn't introduce such topics early in a thread because they the potential to derail the discussion entirely, which is disrespectful both of the OP and of those who would seek to post material that is more directly relevant.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 2nd January 2015 at 16:33
Please refrain from talking economics, world economy, who is taking over who from an economic perspective, who has better engineers etc. Lets keep it technical and stick to the aircraft, program and on topic.