F-35 in falcon 4.0 4.33
-
My country aimed to replace our av8+ with this f-35, after all the problems with it and not to ment the cost they went LOLNO!
-
I agree,
One day “stealth” will no longer have the advantage. But I do believe that day is a long way off. But with technology jumping forward at very fast speeds, it is difficult to say when “stealth” will be negated. Range, type and numbers of weapons per payload while remaining stealthy is a concern. Range is also a big question. Maintenance in the fleet, and under different situations also needs to be examined. All in all, time will tell, even if the F-35 program is the most expensive weapons program ever conceived.
I wonder how much the next weapons program will likely cost? 1 Trillion, 2 or even 3 Trillion dollars??? Who knows……
Bottom line, the F-35 has been proving to be a very capable jet, even if it is not as good as some legacy jets it is ment to replace.
Also, in before the lock……
Very fast? The Have Blufe first take off was almost 40 year ago, so the idea and desig of stealth airframe is about 40 years old. Even today geometry based stealth is just as useful and powerful as was ~33 years ago when F-117 arrived to USAF.
The only “idea” what you can see applied is IRST which is a very, very limited thing comparing to radar.- Geometry based stealth is not weather dependent. IRST are strongly. You cannot ask your enemy not to fly in bad weather or use clouds as cover…
- Comparing to search and tracking capability to PESA and AESA radars considering number of targets and elevation and aziumth they are weak.
- How you can provide MCG with IRST? Measuring target distance, speed, direction for calculated impact/intercept point is qute hard or not possible with IRST as long as they are not networked and all IRST can see the same target. None of current BVR missile has such IR LoaL sensor (excep MICA IR?) which could provide such engagement with AAM where IRST acts as main sensor for missile guidance and MCG generation tool. With ARH AAMs this is also not possible. In fact I’m very curious that small radars on ANY ARH AAM could even lock on stealth airframe.
-
I agree,
One day “stealth” will no longer have the advantage. But I do believe that day is a long way off. But with technology jumping forward at very fast speeds, it is difficult to say when “stealth” will be negated.
I like the camouflage analogy in an earlier post……in WW 1 aircraft were camouflaged to reduce the likely hood of them being detected by the primary sensor (MK1 eyeball) of the day. By night nothing could detect them you could only hear a sound if they flew overhead thus being ultimate stealth fighters in a sense. Obviously the Red Baron was bringing it large and “saying come on then pussies!” by sticking out a mile…but he didn’t have to worry about getting a missile fired at him fired from 10 miles away.
When talking about stealth these days its RF stealth mainly, although aircraft like F-117 had quite a bit of effort on IR signature reduction as well as stopping EM emissions when going to war.
Against radar Stealth will always have the advantage over legacy jets…if you can detect a stealth jet at 10 miles the range you will spot an older jet isn’t worth thinking about.
Before Have Blue the A-12/SR-71 was intentionally built with reduced RCS due to specific requirements which partly explains the chines and blended fuselage. (It would have flown faster and higher without those requirements)
Even going back to WWII it was already known certain materials absorbed Radar. Germany had a pretty good radar setup in WWII but whether unintentional or not the Mosquito was supposed to be a lot harder to pick up over metal constructed aircraft due to the wood reflecting less of the RF energy. (Horten Ho-229 was another they later tested its RCS)
-
Before Have Blue the A-12/SR-71 was intentionally built with reduced RCS due to specific requirements which partly explains the chines and blended fuselage. (It would have flown faster and higher without those requirements)
Maybe was reduced comparing to its size but all long range EW radar was able to track it without any issues. SWE figther regurarly practiced intercept against SR-71 and USSR and WPACT GCI also was able to track is.
The stealthiness of SR-71 is one of the longest living UL. I have no idea why…http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3726000/Re:_SR-71_vs._Vega#Post3726000
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3726006/Re:_SR-71_vs._Vega#Post3726006http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3142688/Re:_S-75M3_Volhov_qualificatio#Post3142688
Can you guessh how could do this MiG-31?
https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/A part of statement of the article is wrong, but the point, you have to detect SR-71 from VERY far to be able to climb and accelerate in time to intercept it.
Kinematically even the stone age Volhov (SA-2) could destroy the SR-71 as long as BB did not use ECM. If you deny the distance data from Volhov it forces the Volhov to three point guidance method. This means far higher max. terminal phase G stress which was too far the Volho at high alt because leading aim is not possible.
-
Can you model the "see through airframe capability?
Yes, just use proper transparent material + allow labels and you have huge advantage over other ACs
-
Yes, just use proper transparent material + allow labels and you have huge advantage over other ACs
What about the switch between Eyeball mark I and DAS display? What about turing off this fetaure? It is much harder as you think at first sight.
-
Maybe was reduced comparing to its size but all long range EW radar was able to track it without any issues. SWE figther regurarly practiced intercept against SR-71 and USSR and WPACT GCI also was able to track is.
The stealthiness of SR-71 is one of the longest living UL. I have no idea why…I am well aware of the operational history of the A-12 and SR-71 thank you……but that isn’t relevant to what I stated. It was designed as a low RCS aircraft…using the tech they had at the time.
-
What about the switch between Eyeball mark I and DAS display? What about turing off this fetaure? It is much harder as you think at first sight.
shift L, ctrl L,….the seethrough canopy would be allways ON or there would be different opaque LOD asociated to some animation…I am not talking about hardcore F35 avionics tho :), just fun enough to fly/test, depending on subject nerdity
-
Maybe was reduced comparing to its size but all long range EW radar was able to track it without any issues. SWE figther regurarly practiced intercept against SR-71 and USSR and WPACT GCI also was able to track is.
The stealthiness of SR-71 is one of the longest living UL. I have no idea why…http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3726000/Re:_SR-71_vs._Vega#Post3726000
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3726006/Re:_SR-71_vs._Vega#Post3726006http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3142688/Re:_S-75M3_Volhov_qualificatio#Post3142688
Can you guessh how could do this MiG-31?
https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/A part of statement of the article is wrong, but the point, you have to detect SR-71 from VERY far to be able to climb and accelerate in time to intercept it.
Kinematically even the stone age Volhov (SA-2) could destroy the SR-71 as long as BB did not use ECM. If you deny the distance data from Volhov it forces the Volhov to three point guidance method. This means far higher max. terminal phase G stress which was too far the Volho at high alt because leading aim is not possible.
I think your criticisms of the SR-71 don’t take into account it was built in the 60s. It had reduced RCS for its time - which is what people are referring to when they say it had stealthy characteristics. I don’t think something that big, that goes that fast, and puts out that much heat will ever be that ‘stealthy’.
Also, don’t you think if the USSR could shoot it down they would’ve (like the U-2)? It would have been a huge win for them.
-
They only reason why was not downed the SR-71 because it never violated the airspace of USSR and WPACT. They flew above only countries what did not had SA-5, only Volhov.
-
They only reason why was not downed the SR-71 because it never violated the airspace of USSR and WPACT. They flew above only countries what did not had SA-5, only Volhov.
Oh, they tried to get her many times.
-
Pretty sure the official line is that they never overflew the USSR.
Whether thats the case or not is probably not something that can be known even with a top secret clearance… need to know and all that. Maybe it will be detailed in some soon to be declassified report or similar, though.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
-
Oh, they tried to get her many times.
I rather believe him…
USSR never tried to down because maybe except some misflight and some km airspace violation SR-71 never flew into WPAC and USSR because with Sz-200 it could be downed without any issue considering only kinematics and jamming of Sz-200 also was not easy.It is also quite unclear to me that M2.8 capable MiG-25 why was not unable to kill SR-71 if would hat time to climb becse R-40 could be launched about at 20 km and the 4-5 km alt diff is also not an issue kinematically for the missile. The burnout speed of an R-40 launched from an M2.5 speed MiG-25 could be ~ M5.5 or even higher.
-
Maybe if those MiG pilots had electronic cockpits like western pilots enjoyed, they could have stood a chance. The systems were just not there though. So much more workload for the pilot to perform basic missile employment, and hitting a fleeting target like the Blackbird is anything but basic.
Your R-40 might be doing M5.5, but at 100 miles trying to get to a valid intercept against something that fast, you are always going to have trouble. Got to get to a launch position first, and that is no small feat if the target is faster than you and is free to maneuver. Definitely not much chance of getting into the NEZ, either.
-
It is also quite unclear to me that M2.8 capable MiG-25 why was not unable to kill SR-71 if would hat time to climb becse R-40 could be launched about at 20 km and the 4-5 km alt diff is also not an issue kinematically for the missile. The burnout speed of an R-40 launched from an M2.5 speed MiG-25 could be ~ M5.5 or even higher.
Victor Belenko apparently was quoted as saying this about the original MiG-25P
What is your maximum operational altitude?
That depends. If you carry only two missiles, you can reach 24,000 meters [78,740 feet] for a minute or two. With four missiles, 21,000 meters [68,900 feet] is the maximum.
What is the maximum altitude of your missiles?
They will not work above 27,000 meters [88,580 feet].
Then you cannot intercept the SR-71 [the most modern U.S. reconnaissance plane]!
True; for all sorts of reasons. First of all, the SR-71 flies too high and too fast. The MiG-25 cannot reach it or catch it. Secondly, as I told you, the missiles are useless above 27,000 meters, and as you know, the SR-71 cruises much higher. But even if we could reach it, our missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 if they are fired in a tail chase. And if they are fired head-on, their guidance systems cannot adjust quickly enough to the high closing speed. -
I rather believe him…
USSR never tried to down because maybe except some misflight and some km airspace violation SR-71 never flew into WPAC and USSR because with Sz-200 it could be downed without any issue considering only kinematics and jamming of Sz-200 also was not easy.It is also quite unclear to me that M2.8 capable MiG-25 why was not unable to kill SR-71 if would hat time to climb becse R-40 could be launched about at 20 km and the 4-5 km alt diff is also not an issue kinematically for the missile. The burnout speed of an R-40 launched from an M2.5 speed MiG-25 could be ~ M5.5 or even higher.
Oh, but they did try to shoot down the Black Bird many times.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/5511236/the-thrill-of-flying-the-sr-71-blackbird
This link is attached to “The Aviationist” article.
-
Oh, but they did try to shoot down the Black Bird many times.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/5511236/the-thrill-of-flying-the-sr-71-blackbird
This link is attached to “The Aviationist” article.
Yes, with SAMs over Vietnam and North Korea, not with MiG-21 or above NSWP or USSR.
-
The Fort Lauderdale Air Show will be the first civilian show to feature the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, May 7 and 8, Yeeha!
-
Yes, with SAMs over Vietnam and North Korea, not with MiG-21 or above NSWP or USSR.
Where did I say anything about USSR???
I think you read into my posts too negatively. I simply said that they have tried to shoot the Black Bird down. Perhaps I should have mentioned specifically who, though RL stories will be hard to find. A few are around but there should be more stories at some point in the future as they may get declassified. Also, that latest article had SA-4 and newer systems that launched against the Black Bird. So, not just the SA-2.
-
Where did I say anything about USSR???
I think you read into my posts too negatively. I simply said that they have tried to shoot the Black Bird down. Perhaps I should have mentioned specifically who, though RL stories will be hard to find. A few are around but there should be more stories at some point in the future as they may get declassified. Also, that latest article had SA-4 and newer systems that launched against the Black Bird. So, not just the SA-2.
SA-4? I doubt. I was never exported outside of USSR and WPACT and as I have said these SAMs never alunched a single missile against SR-71 because never violated the airspace of WPACT and ussr. Not mentioning SA-4 is not PVO system so it never was in alert to defend the airspace…