Isn't the point that comparred to a clean tyfoon a tyfoon with CFT's won't be able to dump them as fast as the tyfoon with jugs can. So is there is still a portion of fuel in the CFT's than than you're stuck with it (dumping it before the merge is not advisable as it will give you a big con trail...) With fuel in the tanks you're wing loading goes up..period. (Just like with the JSF's big internal tanks)

Yeah, don't put them so close to the end. The YF23 had them much more on top than at the back, shielding the engine (= exhaust) from the ground. Futhermore, you could make an enige with a (temporary) higher bypass cooling the plume. Or, just bypass some of the intake air directly and redirect it to the exhaust. Just some thought. ps, couldn't water cooiling (like in a harrier) be a emergency IR reduction?

>> (Hellfire) >> I've never really found logical the fact that some aircraft have to carry external tanks ALL THE TIME. Why not make the aircraft bigger with more internal fuel in the first place? (Shaken) Most of the conformal tanks have been afterthoughts in the design process. In this context, they are much cheaper and more readily added than a redesign of the aircraft to add fuel. >> (Hellfire) >> External tanks have disadvantages.. drag, RCS, weapon >> station taken - usually the one which can take the biggest >> load -. And a non-negliegeable part of the external fuel is >> used just to compensate the additional drag. >> >> External tanks are usefull to extend the aircraft range, but >> my point is that for most missions, aircraft should not have >> to carry them. (Shaken) External tanks have the advantage that you can dump them off and become a lighter, more agile aircraft. Internal carriage of a large fuel load is part of why the F-35 is percieved as less agile than Rafale and Typhoon. F-35 always carries its tanks, Rafale and Typhoon never carry them in comparisons. (On the other hand, we'll probably rarely see them without the tanks in service. This has been the case for most modern fighters). >> (Hellfire) >> And I don't think the penalty in terms of weight for the >> aircraft is that much. The CFTs are an example of that. They >> are not a big penalty for the aircraft for a very significant >> increase of range. >> >> The F-16XL and the JSF are good examples of what I mean. (Shaken) We'll see. The F-15 Fast Packs were supposed to have no effect on performance, but F-15Es are limited a gee and a half less than F-15Cs. My guess is we will see similar performance losses in other CFT developements. You end up in this fight between performance and wing-loading (weight). Since wing loading hits you in the aircraft's range, performance will often be the balance factor that loses. -- Shaken - out --

>> (Interessted2) >> Isn't the point that comparred to a clean tyfoon a tyfoon >> with CFT's won't be able to dump them as fast as the tyfoon >> with jugs can. (Shaken) Certainly. Since underwing tanks can be dumped in flight and CFTs require a ground crew, plus a crane and some other equipment, it is correct that the bags are able to change the configuration more rapidly. (Insert smily faces as needed). >> (Interessted2) >> So is there is still a portion of fuel in the CFT's than than you're stuck with it (dumping it before the merge is not advisable as it will give you a big con trail...) >> >> With fuel in the tanks you're wing loading goes up..period. >> (Just like with the JSF's big internal tanks (Shaken) The presumption in the comparison is that fuel in the underwing tanks would be consumed first (and generally empty when entering combat). The "combat plus get home" fuel load on board will be greater for any aircraft carrying external stores, including CFTs. The internal fuel plus stores aircraft will need less fuel to fight and get home, so it will have advantages over the CFT aircraft and the bags-on aircraft. Any thoughts of fuel-dump before combat are silly. It is too slow and an enormous visual signature hit. -- Shaken - out --

USN-Mid, do you have a source for the claim of +180 / -180 AoA controllability for the Super Bug? Thanks. -- Shaken - out --

Rafale use a chemical product injection around engine wich mask COMPLETELY exhaust plume on more than 5 meter to help decoy when missile comes. I see a infrared picture of device and it seems impressive.The exhaust plume is seen away the plane. Normal plume cooling lower the signature but it is still visible in IR.

I read on the Boeing site that it has an unlimited AoA. "The Super Hornet program remains on time, on weight, and on cost. Improved aerodynamic design gives the F/A-18E/F exceptional combat maneuverability, an unlimited angle of attack and increased resistance to spins and departures." http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/fa18ef_4back.htm

>>(Shaken) The JSF is reportedly not as stealthy to the rear, but I understand the nozzle is treated for stealth. The question is how much less stealthy the JSF is to the rear aspects. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "worse than the Raptor/Nighthawk class, better than the Rafale/Super Bug class". << (B.Smitty) Well, rear aspect RCS on par with the Super Bug is hardly stealth at all. It would have to be orders of magnitude better. (Shaken) I'm not saying JSF rear aspect is comparable with rear aspect of the Super Bug, I'm saying rear aspect JSF could be on par with front aspect Rafale or Super Hornet (perhaps -10 or -20dBsm). >>(Shaken) Hopefully you are doing SEAD work at the same time as your initial strikes. In the US model, you are going to have UCAVs and other stealthier aircraft for the deepest, most dangerous strikes. The JSF is the low-price componant of a high-low mix; while quite capable and quite versatile, there are other tailored tools that are better at specific jobs.<< (B.Smitty) The problem with this is illustrated by Operaion Allied Force. SEAD/DEAD can only attack what they can "see" via recc or emissions. If the opponent plays hide-and-seek, you could have significant threats throughout the conflict. The bad guys may just have to wait for the 'boom' of exploding ordinance before turning on their radars to pick up the departing F-35 raid. (Shaken) Sure, that is a defence that any assaulting air force must be concerned with. You need to have SEAD loaded birds on the way out as well as in. Highly focussed jammers and much faster ARMs will make the SEAD threat more credible and more responsive. I think your presumption is that the JSF is a pinhead from the front and a barn door from the back. If this were going to be the case, I would share your concerns. As I state above, my guess based on available information is that the JSF will be very stealthy from the front and average stealthy from the rear. If this assumption is correct, I think the JSF has a good chance of success against most IADS. Smart attack plans and coordinated SEAD/DEAD role aircraft are also an important factor. Honestly, the value of when shooting at departing forces and the chance of successfully hitting are greatly diminished. The departing aircraft have kinematics on their side as they depart (now much lighter and accelerating away) and are moving from densest to least dense in terms of the defensive coverage. -- Shaken - out --

>> (B.Smitty) Ahh, I see where I was confused. I thought the internal AAM position WAS on the door. After looking again at the diagrams on aerospaceweb.org, I see that it's hinged, but attached to the fuselage, not the door. So there were plans for another AAM mount actually on the door? Doesn't seem like a whole lot of room, if that diagram is right. (Shaken) As I've said, the information on this is sketchy at best. It may be the case that using the door rail would keep you from using the normal A/A ejector. It may be another year (as first flight nears) before good JSF data starts to bubble to the surface. -- Shaken - out --

Unlimited AoA? What does that mean? I'd guess it is talking about the absense of an AoA limiter on the control laws. If the Super Bug could pull 180 degree AoA maneuvers it would be showing them at airshows and over the Super Bowl with the pilots wearing tee-shirts telling the USAF to "get stuffed". I say this because the USN is so happy to overfly any event with Super Bugs. They love rolling this bird out for any PR event. If it had world-beating super-maneuver, they wouldn't be keeping it under their hats. And if they were keeping it under their hats, Boeing wouldn't be announcing the capability on their website. -- Shaken - out --