Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Okay , thanks Guys,
Otter, So yes the external stores increase the RCS so the probable detection range increase from far away to even further away. Thanks.
Munny, thanks for expanding. As I indicated I understand that the angle is important. And as to the figures , in reality we will probably not know in our life time what it truely is.

I suppose why I have asked this is I keep seeing the comments about the Su35s, EF, etc and how they are going to kick F35 in WVR combat. (Ohhh Cobra manuv. etc). Now that could be true but the darn Su35 has to get to WVR. Now that is where it gets down to tactics I assume. If a Su35 without external stores was detected at say (as an example) 2 x distance where a F35 can be detected, then with external stores that distance to detect the Su35 increases further, say x2.5. Then the question gets into how good the missles the F35 carries are as well as how restricted the opposing plane is in countering. With external stores a further issue is impact on Manoeuvrability. So trying to avoid incoming missile IF detected eats into situation awareness and response to further threats. All putting the F35 at an advantage. Forgive me maybe stating the obvious but this talking out the logic has served me well.

Thanks again

F-16.net Sponsor

So if you can't detect an AIM-9 on radar then you won't get an F-35 either, much less an F-22. Interesting.

thebigfish wrote:

Forgive the ignorant question. But I often read that the RCS of this plane is 1m2 and the F35 is about 0.02 or some figure like that. But when the RCS of 1m2 is mentioned for 4+ gen fighters, does that normally include the attached armaments that the F35 carries internally? Although missiles themselves I believe have relatively low RCS, the combination with the several that are carried and the impact of the launch rails and interaction of the plane surfaces, how much does the RCS change? So does the EF RCS increase significantly? Now I understand that from different aspects the RCS may change differently but I am looking for a more qualitative answer, if that is possible?

Clean the Typhoon is generally thought to have an RCS in the .3 to .5m^2 range. The F-35 is likely somewhere between .001 and .0001m^2. Once you hang external stores on either of them, then the RCS is going to be higher than 1m^2.

The F-35 is planned to have a low-RCS external missile.

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065928225

It's the pylon that is LO, not the missile itself (beyond whatever lower RCS it has).

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

So if you can't detect an AIM-9 on radar then you won't get an F-35 either, much less an F-22. Interesting.

Oops, didn't seem right when you mentioned that and I realised I ran the simulation using vhf frequency rather than x-band.... so against x-band, a missile's RCS looks like below....

The weapons pylon's side profile looks a little like this. for a 30 degree arc, its has a significant RCS which peaks at around 1000msq.

Both the B-2 and RQ-170 have lumps along the upper surface of each wing (engines and who-knows-what, respectively), so evidently something sticking out of the wing is not incompatible with stealth design, and may even inherently reduce RCS in some configurations (or why put them in so similar a location on the RQ-170?). The FB-22 concept included stealthy faceted pods under the wings, that surrounded the ordnance until it was launched. By breaking up some returns off the aircraft and bouncing them back on the fuselage another time (and bouncing most of their own returns off the aircraft), supposedly modeling showed a carefully designed stealth pod under each wing actually reduced the RCS compared to the same airframe without the pods. The angles where the pods' return was high might have coincided with the angles the plane itself had to avoid anyway. The penalty of the stealth pod had to be unavoidable in weight and drag, so they were probably more suitable to housing an already bulky bomb for a bombing mission than housing a skinny missile for air superiority. Nevertheless, underwing stores that don't compromise stealth are certainly feasible, at least per statements by LM, and inference from the big and little flying wings.

Edit: And, giving myself a big "duh" for overlooking this with the original post, of course two of the three F-35s themselves carry a centerline gun pod that is supposed to not compromise stealth.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon