rjmaz1 Im the one saying that variable inlets DO NOT make the Raptor and F-35 obselete. It definitely however restricts the top speed of the aircraft, which is never used anyway. BKNO and Ozzy Blizzard are going around posting top speeds to compare aircraft. So they are the ones that are saying not variable inlets make the aircraft obsolete. If the F-22 and F-35 had variable inlets they will no doubt be travelling much quicker and would look better in such unrealistic comparison on specifications.
Actually my point is FAR from being what you make of it.
Variable inlets only reduces the pressure in front of the engine blade compressor allowing for a higher mach than what the engine would allow with a one-shock inlet, typicaly Mach 2.0, since the F-22 possesed vents to do just that its actual Max Mach is higer than it would be without although these are not as effiscient as a 4 or even a 5 shock inlet allowing for M 2.5/2.8/3.0.
More to the point, you guys keep focusing on the subject of engines as it was somewhere near as simple as "more power= more speed".
In real life it is not so, engine design are optimised for different roles, altitudes and Machs and airframe aerodynamics are the main factor to any aircraft to achieve a top speed, lets not forget that F-135 is derivated form the STVOL for all versions thus as After-burner is not used in this part of the flight envelop, maximum DRY output is optimised for low altitudes.
To figure that one out you can either read a lot of aerodynamic ouvrages and define your design standards from there or use manufacturers datas.
Alternatively if you do BOTH you can recoup these two sources and get closer to the real performances.
Politico-Industrial history also play a role here:
Requierements = design = performances.
rjmaz1 The US has no doubt done its research and realised that the F-35 can no doubt perform all its missions and missions of other countries with a top speed of only mach 1.6. The USAF will use information from all sources to create its doctrine.
Quote the USAF service ias for 04/08/99: "In fact, it sees no way to have the JSF without the F-22. At $30 million a copy, the JSF will be an affordable attack aircraft because it does not have to perform the F-22's stealthy air-superiority mission, the service argues."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/08/04/54593/stealth-shackled.html
It seems to me that you're believeing L-M commercials a little too much and keep ingonring the reason behind F-22 supercruise capabilties equierements...
The USAF never envisaged the use of F-35 without F-22 in high-threat scenarios, neither did they envisage the use of F-35 as air-superiority fighter, their early staments proves it, the fact that L-M now advertises their new product as an air superiority fighter doesnt change neither its A2A capabilties, the lack of supercruise and high dash speed nor its performances.
Plus, the USAF didn't go away from their previous Hi-Lo couple phylosophie either.
The difference is that F-22 is the dedicated A2A aircraft and the "Hi bit" of it and that with F-35 you only will got the "Lo bit".
On the subject of avionics, IR and Optronics, if you loose etslth you loose most of its advantages too and according towhat WE know it's only a question of time...
A few newbies from Europe:
World first: Developement and Production of high power/low working temperature GaN components (2006) future implication = Band X AESAs.
World first: Infrared seekers, MADRID, a DGA issued Request for Proposals (RFP) for a low cost, anti-surface Rigid Imaging Infrared Seeker demonstrator with a strap-down architecture and new generation (SOFRADIR) IR detectors.
Breakthrough = Emergence of a large format infrared detector that helped to simplify the homing head line-of-sight system.
Another world first: Caladiom Camera.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/votr...un_capteur_optique_unique_au_monde_recompense
An "Artificial" retina, CMOS programmable, which each individual pixel posseses a 45 bits processor.
Miniaturised computing power, integrated in each pixel, at the closest to the photons capture point is a world FIRST and a major technologic breakthrough.
Main advantages are: Movement detection, no need to produce an image for alert, extremly high sensitivity for low power consuption (<1.8W).
Electronic cortex piloting the retina carry over high-level treatments of situational analysis and only transmit alert as well as synthetic issues of these analysis.
The technology demonstrator, issued from bolométric technology have been succesfuly tested and R&D programme extended to carry the technology to IR Imagery, the goal being to create an IR Caladiom.
>>>>>
It doesn't take much to understand where these techologies will find a useful implication in the near futur:
DGA have been in negotiation since 2004 for with the industials to develop and produce new generation sensors, (EM/IR) including AESA radars with optimised gallium arsenide T/R modules, GaN T/R modules (which are now in production but ONLY GaN waffers of 3 inch diameter vs 6 inche diameter for AsGa), new generation Optronics/IR/Near-IR for both A2A and A2G, new generation missile alert detectors and possible new generation IR seekers for Meteor (and MICAs?)...
The whole of these systems should have find their ways into service around 2012 together with Target Automatic Identification capabilities developed both for active (radar) and passive (Optronic) sensors by ONERA/Thales and BAe.
Now remind me of the potential of these technologies as well as that of F-35 sceduled service entry please...
You guys might not be aware of the developements which have been taking place over the past 6/7 years over here for for us (and as i believe the US are following suite i think they know some we dont read often in forums), weither L.O both EM and IR can be beaten effisciently and continuously is even not our concern anymore, just a matter of time.
So at the end of the day, when F-35 enter service it will be pited vs airframes with high growth potential (futur upgrades) and mostly higher performances from today.
That's WHY i believe there is such a high volume of commercial activities aroundf-35 now and why an aircraft such as the Boeing F/A-18 E/F/G might well present Australia with a better alternative than F-35 considering that a F-22 would be the "High" of the USAF hi-lo couple...
As i say, fit the S-H with a proper avionic and Optronic and you're in buziness...
Ozzy Blizzard 1. How can an IRST pick up a target without being cued from Radar? I have read reports of advanced ESM being able to cue IRST, is this possible and if so is it usefull?
Not only possible but it actually works EXACTLY like a radar in search and track mode it is also multi-target capable.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51953/seeker-gets-on-track.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/05/05/50879/tests-begin-on-rafale-optronics.html
Ozzy Blizzard2. Can a platform make a usefull IR BVR guided missile shot from its IRST data alone, or does it need accurate range information? (i am under the impression that a single IRST even advansed models can not give range information, and therefore multiple sensors are needed in order to triangulate range)
From whar we know it IS the couple BVR IR/FSO which provides with BVR engagement capabilties. New generation seekers allow for a much extended detection range than the previous and can also be used as FLIR.
The passive homing head enables completely "silent" interceptions when it is used with an OSF (Front Sector Optronics). The pilot can also use the MICA IR for discrete optronics monitoring, in addition to the active monitoring radar on his aircraft throughout the duration of the mission.
http://www.mbda.co.uk/
Coupled with the FSO a MICA IR would be able to be fired beyhond 60 km which, have bee "squadron noises" reported as actually being curently achieved as an optimum detection and lock range, more to it, sensor fusion increases the capabilties of BOTH the OSF and AAM.
Ozzy Blizzard RE the Typhoon vs Raptor. I have a hard time believing claims that without stealth things are allmost equal between these two platforms, especialy sinse they come from a Typhoon pilot. Correct me if i'm wrong but even without stealth, Raptor holds the kinematic advantage by a mile, is more manuverable in all flight regimes, has a far superior LPI radar system, has heaps more internal fuel and enjoys drag free weapons bays. So i'm struggleing to see how the Typhoon is even close. And thats without LO.
I DONT think so. F-22 flight envelop is far from being greater than that of a Typhoon appart for its supercruise and top speeds, its TVC doesn't function the way you imagine it does appart for airshows and at the end of the day, maneuvrability = wingload, for instantaneous turn rate, wingload + TWR for sustained turn rate.
During close combat between the two, Typhoon pilots had the upper hand and reported this too.
Raptor TVC helps it in the instantaneous turn rate dpt but not to the point where it can beat either a Typhoon or a Rafale.
To give you a clue: Typhoon Max AoA is 70*, Gripen 90* AoA, Rafale passed 100* and 40 kt negative speed , on aerodynamics only, in effect a COBRA maneuvre without TVC.
What i posted were the comments of professional and highly trained pilots, believe what you might, it doesn't make any difference, these guys generally tells it as it is and too bad if the legend of the US superiority suffers.
swerve At 42000 feet, the speed of sound is lower than at sea level - only about 650 mph or 1050 km/h. 1000 knots is about 1850 km/h, i.e. almost M1.8 at that altitude.
It all depends on HOW manufacturers give their airspeed...
When not corrected the difference at this sort of altitude is <.> 0.2 M or <> 30%.
The famous </> 1.200 mph of L-M is not making the airframe Mach limit higher than M 1.6 it only indicate a data in non-KCAS, for the same data a F/A-18E/F is given for 1.390 mp/h by Boeing = M 1.8.
What matters in fact is the designed Mach limit of the airframe not really the predicted airspeed corresponding to (ever changing) flight conditions.
