F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So the Gist is that Roper wants to Use the Kratos XQ58A as a bridge between F22 IFDL and F35 MADL. At first shake good, they need to be able to talk to each other. The Problem is this makes Valkyrie absolutely nessisary for such communication. If Valkyrie isn’t delivered, deployed no talking. It becomes platform centric.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
In other words, the nose of su-34 is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig or putting V-tail on B-52. It won't make su-34 stealthy in any shape or form.
Life vs a Dale Brown Novel. 02FE5703-41B3-49C9-BA50-566DFF86A391.png

SU34 is a Flanker hull with bombers nose. No amount of bolt on changes will make it stealth. It’s not simple shaping, it’s not coatings it’s a wholistic approach. That’s why even retired F117 are kept under lock and key and stripped down for displays.
 

Brumby

Major
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So the Gist is that Roper wants to Use the Kratos XQ58A as a bridge between F22 IFDL and F35 MADL. At first shake good, they need to be able to talk to each other. The Problem is this makes Valkyrie absolutely nessisary for such communication. If Valkyrie isn’t delivered, deployed no talking. It becomes platform centric.
The whole idea of having a gateway node install in an attritable $2 million plus drone just do not make sense. By definition an "attritable" means it could easily disappear from the scene and that is not sound planning if your 5th gen assets are dependent on it to communicate with each other. If it is cost effective to install the node in an attritable why not just install it directly onto the F-22? In my view the ideal platform to install the gateway node would be onto a RQ-180 as it is a penetrating asset and being a HALE would be ideal not only as a relay node between the two 5th gen platforms but also to relay via SATCOM back to C2.
 
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So the Gist is that Roper wants to Use the Kratos XQ58A as a bridge between F22 IFDL and F35 MADL. At first shake good, they need to be able to talk to each other. The Problem is this makes Valkyrie absolutely nessisary for such communication. If Valkyrie isn’t delivered, deployed no talking. It becomes platform centric.
here comes a related quote from
Air Force to link F-35, F-22 in ‘connect-a-thon’ experiment
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

“The good news about that is [Congress and the Pentagon] don’t really have to believe us for very long. Just let us get through a few connect-a-thon cycles,” Roper said. “And if we’re failing miserably, then that should tell you something about the future of the program.”

welcome to 2019 US Military

Nov 1, 2019
Oct 17, 2019
now
Midshipmen finally get a Satanic Temple room
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


(didn't read below the first two sentences, prayed instead)
 
Mar 1, 2019
...


my conjecture is the F-35 on-board diagnostics is at last-century level, so it can't cope with something THAT over-overgineered, but can't be upgraded either
now
"The Pentagon is in the process of revamping the system’s underlying architecture, which is now pushing 20 years old, said Robert F. Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation."
:
Lawmakers Cooling on F-35 Multi-Year Production Contracts
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
The Pentagon plan to save the F-35’s logistics system hinges on whether Lockheed will relinquish data control
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL as if the Pentagon didn't know LockMart would want that one trillion dollars
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
You are confusing between a definition and description of a phenomenon and the formula/equation used to calculate the effect of such a phenomenon.
What I gave is a description of return in Mie region. To calculate the effect then you have to use equation and formula. To apply in the real world you normally need a computer to do the calculation for you.
For example: If the task is to make a plane fly.
The description would be: to generate more lift than the mass of the airplane.
The equation would be: Lift = 1/2*air density*lift coefficient* velocity^2* reference wing area.
The practical design would be: using wind tunnel to measure lift coefficient of different shape and their structural strength.
Similarly, the description I cited are the general guidance to how you should design a stealth aircraft: avoid corner, avoid sharp edges, avoid gaps ..etc. But to know what is the most optimum way to do them, you need a computer, because even though you have the equation and you have the theory, doing the thounsands-millions calculation is not the task that anyone really wants to do.
This is the reason why a very strong mathematical background required for any complicated engineering design.

This is the same case like in the Quantum chromodynamics and the Quantum electrodynamics .

The centre of gravity / lift can be calculated with the general knowledge of the shape, after this calculation the centre of gravity / lift will not move too much if you consider the exacts shape of edges, holes protrusions and so on.

With the interaction of the electromagnetic field with the body of the aircraft the mathematical method and model is different,
If you add a small detail to the model then the backscatter to the emitter will change not by the relative magnitude of the change, like in the case of centre of lift, but by the same magnitude like with the first calculation .

See ?

So , all simplified model will be useless for the design.





Of course I know aircraft have different radar scattering characteristic in vertical and horizontal polarization, the graph I posted in the previous post literally shown that.
Besides, you are mistaken, only return in optical region (high frequency radar) can be independent of the frequency, whereas return in Mie and Rayleigh region (low frequency radar) is always dependent on frequency.
Again, check the results of real life experiments.

This is a bit more complex than this simplified model.

Yes the nose of Su-34 is not a cylinder, so that help prevent creeping wave return, however, apart from that tiny detail, Su-34 does nothing to reduce specular and creeping wave return, like I said before: has external weapons (keep in mind most missiles and bombs has cylinder shape), a straight inlet with exposed turbine blades, straight up vertical stabilizer making 90 degrees angle with the fuselage, pylons making 90 degrees corner with the wing, rectangle inlet with 90 degrees angle, the 2 inlets also make another right angle corner with the fuselage, the radar aperture is vertical, the trailing and leading edges have no edge treatment. In other words, the nose of su-34 is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig or putting V-tail on B-52. It won't make su-34 stealthy in any shape or form.
The Russians did a deep and expensive work with the robot applied lamination of the air intakes and so on.
So , two possible motivation :
1. Russians are stupid, and did a pointless work
2. The X band backscatter satisfy the military requirements.

Considering that the Russians has no issue to refuse the delivery of a military hardware it the performance of it doesn't hit the requirements (it is the opposite of the USA practice) we have to consider that maybe the explanation #2 is true.


Of course it gives only frontal low observation characteristic, and it can be slightly bigger in X band than the F-35, but the Su-34 has to penetrate a patriot battery, not an S-300, and even a flying pig with a lipstick can do that : P
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
This is the reason why a very strong mathematical background required for any complicated engineering design.

This is the same case like in the Quantum chromodynamics and the Quantum electrodynamics .

The centre of gravity / lift can be calculated with the general knowledge of the shape, after this calculation the centre of gravity / lift will not move too much if you consider the exacts shape of edges, holes protrusions and so on.

With the interaction of the electromagnetic field with the body of the aircraft the mathematical method and model is different,
If you add a small detail to the model then the backscatter to the emitter will change not by the relative magnitude of the change, like in the case of centre of lift, but by the same magnitude like with the first calculation .

See ?

So , all simplified model will be useless for the design.







Again, check the results of real life experiments.

This is a bit more complex than this simplified model.


The Russians did a deep and expensive work with the robot applied lamination of the air intakes and so on.
So , two possible motivation :
1. Russians are stupid, and did a pointless work
2. The X band backscatter satisfy the military requirements.

Considering that the Russians has no issue to refuse the delivery of a military hardware it the performance of it doesn't hit the requirements (it is the opposite of the USA practice) we have to consider that maybe the explanation #2 is true.


Of course it gives only frontal low observation characteristic, and it can be slightly bigger in X band than the F-35, but the Su-34 has to penetrate a patriot battery, not an S-300, and even a flying pig with a lipstick can do that : P
Once again you're so far out in left field you can't see home plate, for you information the Riussians may have 2-3 LRIP aircraft, the rest are early pre production prototypes, the Russian military wouldn't dare refuse an Su-57, they need every airworthy bird they can get their hands on. So if and when the Su-57 goes into batch production, we will let you know...

In the meantime, you are even further off topic, as this is the F-35 thread my friend....

and the F-35 continues to roll of the production line in Ft. Worth, no doubt the most advanced fifth generation aircraft currently in production...
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
There we have it. Us Bad Russian Good!.
When pushed to the point where the claims don’t match the facts, “Well it must! You are simply looking from the wrong point of view so let’s change the situation and bash another American defense system as clearly inferior because it has ‘Made in America’ written on the side.”
 

Top