| Author |
Message |
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
 Posted: Apr 28, 2012 - 09:28 AM
|
 
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2208
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
So we take the Viper's basic design....
put internal bays on it for 'stealthy' weapons carriage,
add a bigger more lethal cannon,
add advanced avionics, cockpit displays, fused 360* IR sensors, and AESA
increase the fuel load for more range without unstealthy tanks,
move the 'ramp-less' (aka stealth) inlets to the side (so we don't constantly FOD motors with that stupid ventral intake!),
split the tail in two for better LO than a single 90* tail,
hinge the canopy forward so egress isn't constantly pulling it off,
beef up the motor to push it all and add the most advanced FADEC for single engine reliance!,
and add LO to the entire package...
What do we have?
An F-35A Lightning II! 
TEG |
_________________
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 10:34 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
vilters
|
|
Posted: Apr 28, 2012 - 04:23 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Sep 28, 2009 - 01:16 AM
Posts: 78
Location: belgium Zelem
Status: Offline
|
A F-16XL, with a dual vertical tail, smart coating, and with beefed up avionix would do at half the cost of a F-35.
hey. . .Wake up..
There simply is no money. Period. Argument closed. Finished. Done and over with.
Or some countries would only be able to afford a dozen or so of the new birds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
southernphantom
|
|
Posted: Apr 28, 2012 - 07:18 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 749
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
|
|
vilters wrote:
A F-16XL, with a dual vertical tail, smart coating, and with beefed up avionix would do at half the cost of a F-35.
hey. . .Wake up..
There simply is no money. Period. Argument closed. Finished. Done and over with.
Or some countries would only be able to afford a dozen or so of the new birds.
We'll need all the hardware we can get our hands on once the whole thing comes crashing down. I mean, has anyone checked out the Debt Clock recently??  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
discofishing
|
|
Posted: Apr 30, 2012 - 07:22 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Nov 07, 2008 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 1303
Status: Offline
|
|
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
So we take the Viper's basic design....
put internal bays on it for 'stealthy' weapons carriage,
add a bigger more lethal cannon,
add advanced avionics, cockpit displays, fused 360* IR sensors, and AESA
increase the fuel load for more range without unstealthy tanks,
move the 'ramp-less' (aka stealth) inlets to the side (so we don't constantly FOD motors with that stupid ventral intake!),
split the tail in two for better LO than a single 90* tail,
hinge the canopy forward so egress isn't constantly pulling it off,
beef up the motor to push it all and add the most advanced FADEC for single engine reliance!,
and add LO to the entire package...
What do we have?
An F-35A Lightning II!
TEG
Yeah, I tried with something like this. LOL! It will be tough to see the mighty Viper step aside and give way to newer types, but that's how it works. The once mighty Phantom had to give way to the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18. Now the teen series are giving way to the 5th gen birds. I think UAE's F-16E is the last significant block upgrade we will see. The effort, for now, will be put into upgrades and keeping current F-16s relevant until replace, numerically, by enough F-35s. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
strykerxo
|
|
Posted: Apr 30, 2012 - 09:54 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Mar 21, 2008 - 04:40 AM
Posts: 301
Status: Offline
|
| Does anyone think LM is going to provide an upgrade to compete with itself, F-16 vs F-35. |
_________________
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
|
|
|
|
|
|
vilters
|
|
Posted: Apr 30, 2012 - 10:11 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Sep 28, 2009 - 01:16 AM
Posts: 78
Location: belgium Zelem
Status: Offline
|
|
strykerxo wrote:
Does anyone think LM is going to provide an upgrade to compete with itself, F-16 vs F-35.
YES!
When no country has the hard dollars to buy their F-35?
YES! They will have to.
But most countries are too stupid to see that and follow blindfolded in the 5th Gen hype.
Because that is all it is: a Hype.
Lots of noice for something we do not NEED. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pseudonymous
|
|
Posted: May 02, 2012 - 10:26 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 22, 2012 - 02:56 PM
Posts: 5
Status: Offline
|
| The original poster talked about signature reductions to match the levels achieved by the eurocanards and SH, not F-35. That is apples and oranges in terms of what needs to be done, in fact the later block F-16's already have substantial reduction measures. The limiting factor to reach eurocanard/SH levels is the engine inlet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
southernphantom
|
|
Posted: May 02, 2012 - 01:48 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 749
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
|
|
pseudonymous wrote:
The original poster talked about signature reductions to match the levels achieved by the eurocanards and SH, not F-35. That is apples and oranges in terms of what needs to be done, in fact the later block F-16's already have substantial reduction measures. The limiting factor to reach eurocanard/SH levels is the engine inlet.
Does anyone know if the DSI inlet tested on the Viper for the JSF would improve that area's RCS?? I suspect that it would. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tacf-x
|
|
Posted: May 03, 2012 - 01:12 AM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Sep 17, 2011 - 03:25 AM
Posts: 431
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Status: Offline
|
| By removing that diverter and the space between the inlet and diverter you remove an area for radar to reflect off of as the hump becomes flush with the fuselage and doesn't make a right angle with the fuselage. That's why the F-35 uses DSI as F-22 used a space between the inlet and fuselage for thick boundary layer flow from the fuselage forebody to go into. Unfortunately that slot required heavy RAM treatments so to save money DSI was used for the F-35. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
