Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 vs. Eurofighter
IAFbestinworld    8/13/2004 11:49:07 PM
Lockheed says that besides the f-22, the f-35 will be the best air to air fighter in the future, is this true? Could an f-35 take a Eurofighter? My opinion says yes since f-35 contains more stealthy characteristics.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46   NEXT
displacedjim    RE:Detection of F-35's with IRST   8/24/2004 4:35:43 AM
Furthermore, to repeat, all operational IRSTs so far are lame at searching for unknown targets, as opposed to being able to lock on to a known target at whatever range. We're still back to an F-35 that can detect a Su-30 at 100NM and a Su-30 that can detect an F-35 at 25NM. Now maybe if the Su-30 had an IRST in the tail stinger it might be able to detect the F-35 as it sends an AMRAAM up the FLANKER's rear end. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Detection of F-35's with IRST   8/24/2004 8:55:10 AM
Boris, Ditto to all of what Jim and Shaken said, plus you have misread the website I posted. It contains the views of Carlo Kopp, a part-time aviation reporter who calls himself an analyst. It does not represent the views of the Royal Australian Air Force, so please stop telling people that it does.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    Shaken and the bubble... was:Detection of F-35's with IRST   8/24/2004 10:45:26 AM
Okay, I read the ending of my recent post and wanted to say I'm a bit offside with the wording. I didn't mean to come off so confrontational. Forum posts are lousy at conveying subtleties of communication and I'm pretty sure that the last post won't read with the conversational tone that was intended. Despite my over-agressive language, I enjoy Boris' posting and am happy to have someone so enthusiatic about the Russian aviation industry. It is a group that are willing to try some daring moves made doubly interesting by them innovating in the face of huge budgetary limitations. Anyway Boris, I'm sorry if the last one came off poorly. This wasn't my intent. Chalk it up to typing too fast on a late night. -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

jjfs2    RE:AESA... USN-MID   8/24/2004 11:32:43 AM
"JSF and Raptor will go into service with second generation AESA sets, while the Eagle's APG-63 v(3)AESA and the Super Hornet's APG-77 are first generation sets." The super hornet's apg-77?
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    RE:AESA... USN-MID   8/24/2004 11:41:54 AM
>> (Shaken) >> "JSF and Raptor will go into service with second generation >> AESA sets, while the Eagle's APG-63 v(3)AESA and the Super >> Hornet's APG-77 are first generation sets." > > (jjfs) > The super hornet's apg-77 I'm sorry, the Super Hornet's APG-79. Like the proposed Captor and RBE.2 AESA radars, the APG-79 wraps an AESA array of T/R modules around a conventional back end. This offers significant advantages over passive phased arrays and mechanical arrays, but may not be able to exploit the full potential of AESA. (Think of it as the J.21R approach to AESA radar). -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:Detection of F-35's with IRST   8/24/2004 11:16:59 PM
The L-29 has a turbojet engine, that's true, but it is very much smaller than the turbofan of the F-35, and the L-29's speed is too small to cause significant skin friction. I'd think its a good bet that the F-35 will have a greater thermal signiature, particularly when dissipating radar (RAM converts radio energy to thermal energy....) I'll further argue this point tomorrow as I'm currently nursing a very, very vile hangover :(
 
Quote    Reply

919    RE:SH Agility-why does it matter   8/25/2004 12:19:01 AM
So did the Zero. Dogfighting has very little to do with gaining air superority. ALL the aces say the same thing. The key is locating the enemy so you can sneak up on them and shoot thenm inthe back. Boom and Zoom won the air war in the 1940's. The Mig-15 had a much Larger manuver envelope then the F-86, which established about a 3 to 1 kill ratio over the Mig. ACM is for dead men. Aces stalk and kill. Since target location is done by Radar, the lower RCS will win. Manuverability doesn't matter. Speed to control the engagement is 2nd in importance tactically. Rate of climb is 3rd.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:Detection of F-35's with IRST   8/25/2004 1:56:41 AM
"The L-29 has a turbojet engine, that's true, but it is very much smaller than the turbofan of the F-35, and the L-29's speed is too small to cause significant skin friction" Um need we mention physics and thermodynamics here again? Barring grossly different speeds any similar craft (frame and materials roughly similar) while having one with a turbojet engine and the other with a turbofan engine, the turbojet will always be HOTTER than a turbofan engine unless you somehow cool the exhaust drastically somehow.
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:SH Agility -Shaken   8/25/2004 2:36:26 AM
Yes there is a source, for once. Jane's All the World's Aircraft(you know, the big hardcover fatbodied tome)...I think it was the 2000-2001 entry. Apparently it's actually been flight tested to those AoA specs. I'm not sure why it's not shown off during airshows. Probably creates incredible stress on the airframe though, right? But they take it to some hard AoAs as it is already. And I agree, agility isn't everything. But it still gives bragging rights in the bar when you wax the other guy in a dogfight exercise.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    RE:SH Agility -Shaken   8/25/2004 4:19:26 AM
I pulled the JAWA June 17, 2003 entry for the Super Hornet off the website last year, which had the following information: "Generally as for first-generation Hornet. Stretched versions of F/A-18C/D; gross landing weight increased by 4,536 kg (10,000 lb); 0.86 m (2 ft 10 in) fuselage plug; wings photometrically increased in size to provide 9.29 m2 (100.0 sq ft) extra area and 1.31 m (4 ft 3½ in) span increase; control surfaces disproportionately enlarged and dogtooth added to leading-edge for increased aileron authority. Wings 2.5 cm (1 in) deeper at root; larger horizontal tail surfaces; LEX size substantially increased in early 1993 (from total 5.8 m2; 62.4 sq ft to 7.0 m2; 75.3 sq ft, compared with 5.2 m2; 56.0 sq ft on F/A-18C/D), ensuring full manoeuvre capability at beyond 40º AoA; also incorporates spoilers on upper surface of LEX as speedbrake and to increase nose-down control authority. Nevertheless, has 42 per cent fewer parts than immediate predecessor." I'd be interested in a transcription of the 2001 entry to get a feel for what they were describing. I feel much more comfortable with a number in the forty to forty-five degrees positive AoA. -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics