>> R.Mod >> I can't find any reliable info on the F-35 in any variants. I'm pretty sure that none of the aircraft have TVC in any form. The F-35B's TVC is only used for it's VTOL maneuvers, IIRC it has to open up a number of flaps in order to direct it's thrust downwards, which would be a sucicidle move if you were going beyond around 300 knots as the flaps would be prone to being ripped off and damaging the aircraft. (Shaken) According to Janes All the World's Aircraft, the non-STOVL JSF variants will have a three-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzle derived from LOAN. This would be for in-flight maneuver, unlike the three-bearing swivel nozzle on the STOVL variant. As you stated, the STOVL's swivel-nozzle is only intended tof take-off and landing and has big doors that could not be opened at speed. Some folks on this board claim this is out of date information and that the nozzle was deleted for cost reasons. I have not been able to confirm this and they have not provided sources to back this data up (despite repeated requests). To be honest, LockMart and the services are keeping a low-profile on the JSF program right now and are not exposing significant details about the work in progress. In a couple of years we'll see prototypes flying and will know for sure. (The X-35 was a technology development platform, not a fighter prototype). -- Shaken - out --

"The SH has roughly the same performances as an F-18C, and the EF-2000 easily out-performs an F-18C." I have seen bothe the F/A-18C and the F/A-18F fly, and all i can say is the Super Hornet is considerably more agile.

>> () >> "In what way will it be superior to the AESA" >> >> (Rule.B) >> Primarily because it is a solid state system, which vastly >> improves the EF2000’s RCS, also the use of three processing >> channels which enables more efficient sidelobe nulling, >> interference blanking and jammer classification. >> >> "One the benefits to using a solid-state radar is the ability >> to control the energy emitted by the array, so called energy >> or signature management. For example by hopping between >> a number of frequencies in quick succession (so called Fast >> Frequency Hoping, FFH) the Power Spectral Density (PSD) is >> lowered. By lowering the PSD it becomes possible to (nearly) >> hide the emissions in background noise making it extremely >> difficult (but not impossible) to detect. This is termed Low >> Probability of Detection, or LPD. These techniques also >> reduce the likelihood of the signal being monitored or >> spoofed, this is termed Low Probability of Exploitation (LPE). >> These two capabilities combine to give Low Probability of >> Interception, or LPI. Other LPI techniques that may be >> exploited with a solid-state active array include the ability to >> trade the peak power output against resolution, >> automatically reduce the peak power to a minimum for a >> given target and range and preventing the transmission of >> microwave energy towards a known threat. Of course though >> all these techniques will trade something to achieve LPI." (Shaken) These are properties of AESA radars in general and most are common to passive phased array radars. The worrisome thing about Typhoon is Tranche 2 is already at risk and there are serious doubts about Tranche 3 even being built. Britain is pushing hard for AtG integration and AtA systems (like HMS, TVC and AESA) are being pushed back. The big buyers of Typhoon are all facing dramatic budget cuts and (if I'm not mistaken) have only made Tranche-2 commitments. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I am saying it would not be a solid bet. -- Shaken - out --

Putting my money where my mouth is. Here are two good articles on AESA radars in general, from AviationWeek & Space Technology. (Long, nasty URLs. I hope they cut and paste correctly). New Radar Design Uses Unique Building Blocks DAVID A. FULGHUM/LONDON September 11, 2000 http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=3901&url=http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_military.jsp?view=story%26id=news/mjsf4.xml DECEPTION AND POWER By David A. Fulghum 07/11/2004 04:10:26 PM F" target="_blank">http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=6750&url=http%3A%2F%2F> If the URLs don't work right, just go to http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow and search with the keyword "AESA". -- Shaken - out --

>> (RuleB) >> "Eurofighter is a fifth-generation combat aircraft with fully >> digital, integrated aircraft, avionics and weapon systems." >> >> http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0028.html >> >> Considering your source has not been updated since 2000... (Shaken) Has something changed in the last four years in any of these programs, except for how far behind the programs are? Saying a reference about the generation of the aircraft is more relevant because of the date seems flawed to me. -- Shaken - out --

>> (RM-Nod) >> I forgot to say that, althought the wing loading and thrust to wieght ratios give a good indication of maneuverability it doesn't tell the whole story. This is due to current and future generation aircraft being so unstable. Even with a higher wing loading and lower T/W ratio it is possible for an aircraft to out perform those with lower wing loadings and higher T/W ratios, because they are more unstable. Unfortunatley this information is not available to the public, and for that reason we can speculate all we want and make educated guesses but in the end they are still just speculations and guesses. (Shaken) Instability helps you in pitch rate and roll rate. It is about sudden changes of maneuver. This is useful in reacting to newly discovered threats (i.e. the RWR/MAWS just let you know someone has a message for you), in attempting break-lock maneuvers and in the end-game of a guns engagement. Sustained maneuvers comprise the biggest part of ACM, particularly as missile seeker arcs have expanded. This is where wing-loading plays a big role. There are a bunch of other factors that tell you how the aircraft will behave in form drag (versus airspeed) and turn drag (versus g-load). These factors are not readily available (but approximations can be derived though some wizard complex math). So what you compare depends on what regime you are comparing. -- Shaken - out --

bla bla... the E has about the same manoeuvrability as the C - in fact it may be even worse -.. the typhoon is another beast entirely, and once it has its TVN, forget it... The SH is slow and has a relatively bad acceleration...

"DECEPTION AND POWER By David A. Fulghum 07/11/2004 04:10:26 PM F" target="_blank">http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=6750&url=http%3A%2F%2F> " Awesome! Say hello to the next USAF electronic warfare aircraft: the EB-52H! Displacedjim

I agree but my point is that most of the information needed is not available to the public so we can't really make any good assesments of the aircraft untill they are made 100% public which won't be for a VERY long time.

Well, I am telling you what I saw. If you're not going to take my word for it, then so be it. I am telling you the truth though.