F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24419
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Nov 2017, 22:34

mas wrote:I have worked it some more

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20090209#!&pid=24

Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm, the equivalent radar reflection of a steel "marble". By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm, about the size of a golf ball.


p.s. AW registration is free and is all that is needed to see archives.

Thanks - I did not know (or forgot) registration was FREE for the AvWEAK archives. 2 page PDF of article attached.

:devil: STRIKE UP THAT 'AIR GUITAR' BAND BRUDDA! :devil:

Attachments
RaptorsEdgeRCSquoteF-22&F-35 Aviation Week 09 Feb 2009 pp24-27.pdf
(1.03 MiB) Downloaded 232 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post20 Nov 2017, 22:40

Cool, could you kindly do a PDF of the 2005 original too please so we have a complete record of it too for others to judge context ?

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20051114#!&pid=27
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24419
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Nov 2017, 22:41

One Page PDF of 'Fighter Fights' AvWEAK Fulghum 14 Nov 2005 article page 27 - 28 - F-35 RCS quote attached.
“...From the front, the F/A-22's signature is -40dBm2 (the size of a marble) while the F-35's is -30 dBm2 (the size of a golf ball). The F-35 is said to have a small area of vulnerability from the rear because engin-eers reduced cost by not designing a radar blocker for the engine exhaust....” [‘Fighter Fights’ from Aviation Week & Space Technology; 14 Nov 2005, page 27]" http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20051114#!&pid=26
Attachments
FighterFightsAvWEAK14nov2005RCSquoteF-35.pdf
(424.7 KiB) Downloaded 208 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 21 Nov 2017, 00:29, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post20 Nov 2017, 23:53

mas wrote:I have worked it some more

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20090209#!&pid=24

Pentagon officials have said privately = we made it up that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm, the equivalent radar reflection of a steel "marble". By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm, about the size of a golf ball.


p.s. AW registration is free and is all that is needed to see archives.

You don't see what is wrong with this? It's just David in 2009, telling the same made up story from his 2005 article. Only now it's secret backchannel pentagon,,the made up story stays the same, only the unaccredited sources change.

about the blocker, also the f-35 doesn't have an AB spray bar, which is also to reduce the IR
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 07:48

When you have top LMT executives like Ben Rich and people like Robert Wallace, senior manager for F-35 flight operations, describing RCS of stealth aircraft comparing them to everyday objects I find it hard to believe David would make up that detailed comparison all by himself considering Young talked about signature in a quote directly before it. Also when this all came out in 2005 why was it not denied by the military if so wrong or classified as it was attributed to them at the time e.g. USAF. What may be classified is the actual RCS figure and at what exact angle but general descriptions do not appear to be taboo.

Anyway my original point still stands, F-35 RCS started out being characterised as being worse than F-22 but ended up being better which was described by Wallace and others (see previous Reddit compilation) and attributed to more advanced RAM and techniques learnt from the B-2. Anyway this is all good as you want the F-35 to have the best RCS as it is the one that needs to go into lions dens, who have good (radar) lookouts, to defang them.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 08:51

"Also when this all came out in 2005 why was it not denied by the military if so wrong or classified as it was attributed to them at the time e.g. USAF."

The 2005 article didn't say it was a quote from Young...stop BS'ing.
How long have you been following the military, I'm just in observer, but most people know that no one will confirm or deny any classified stuff. That's why they can write any rubbish they want, a few examples have been given in this thread. There was even a f-22 pilot (name?) who posted here some years ago, that had his fingers slapped for saying a tale was false. By saying that wasn't true, he breached security.
I know you want it to be true, but no one has said the f-22 is -40 and the f-35 -30db.
you have looked for several days and found no such quote.

When the f-35 was being touted as 'stealthier' than the f-22. I can't confirm the video where the uniform (I think it was Chip Berke on a SLD Norway 5th gen conference? I rewatched the video some years ago and either it was edited or I have the wrong one) said "the f-35 is lower rcs, at least in the search bands". Implying the f-22 is lower in the targeting band.

What you may not know is, that it is suggested that the f-22 is getting/got new skin. Boeing was doing the layups some years ago. source, member of f-16 net. So even if it was true x time ago. It may not be true now or tomorrow.
viewtopic.php?t=16091
Last edited by optimist on 21 Nov 2017, 11:51, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 10:46

mas wrote:Anyway my original point still stands, F-35 RCS started out being characterised as being worse than F-22 but ended up being better which was described by Wallace and others (see previous Reddit compilation) and attributed to more advanced RAM and techniques learnt from the B-2. Anyway this is all good as you want the F-35 to have the best RCS as it is the one that needs to go into lions dens, who have good (radar) lookouts, to defang them.


Now it's my turn to retort what you've told me earlier on:
- You're making up this stuff! (specially the underlined part)

First, the F-35's advanced RAM doesn't come from the B-2!
The F-117, B-2 and F-22 all use an older kind of RAM coating which requires a higher maintenance than the F-35 RAM coating. For example the older coating seems to "peel off" with relative ease as opposed to the F-35 RAM coating which is said to be a rubber-kind (not actually rubber but a composite material that resembles it) and as such is far more resistant.
Resuming what the new and more advanced F-35 RAM coating brings IS NOT a reduction on RCS compared to older RAM coatings but instead the new and more advanced F-35 RAM coating is much easier and cheaper to maintain while maintaining the same/similar RCS reduction levels of older coatings.

Actually and like optimist have said, there's a plan to include the F-35 RAM coating into the F-22 which according to what you said it should reduce the F-22 RCS, right? WRONG, it will only reduce maintenance costs!
And you can read this here:

http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Co ... e21321.htm

USAF says coatings don't reduce radar cross section

The USAF has some of the most capable aircraft in the world within its fleet. Many of the aircraft that it fields in any conflict are older and were designed decades ago; but it also has some very capable next generation aircraft like the F-22 and the F-35 that will be coming online in the next few years.

The F-22 and the F-35 are similar in that they are both fighter aircraft that are designed from the outset to have stealth characteristics to make them harder to see by enemy radar. With the F-35 being the newer aircraft, it has more advanced radar-absorbing coatings on the surface than the F-22. Lockheed has announced that it is now integrating some of the more advanced coatings the F-35 uses onto the F-22 fighters coming of the assembly line.

"Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president and general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin.

Defense News reports that Babione claims that the new coatings don’t change the radar cross section of the F-22. The coatings according to Babione are simply to reduce maintenance costs. He said, "[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable and we were able to pull those back on to the F-22. So our system is better, and the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced."

Analyst Dan Goure said, "It's not going to transform the airplane, but what it's going to really do is make it much cheaper to operate the F-22 fleet, which is terribly important given its small size."

However, some doubt that the new coatings won't improve the radar visibility of the F-22. Goure also noted, "I would be very surprised if this wasn't an improvement in stealth characteristics."

Lockheed had to make some changes to the coatings to be used on the F-22 that the F-35 didn’t require. Goure said, "It's [the F-22] operating at a higher altitude typically and [at] faster speeds, and that would put different stresses on the material."

The only F-22 fighters that are using the new coating for now are the most recent Lot 9 aircraft and other new and improved materials are still in the final qualification phase. Lockheed hopes to roll the coatings out to the entire fleet next year. At that point, all existing aircraft will be retrofitted with the new coating.

The F-22 was recently left out of the fighting in Libya because it was both too advanced and too limited at the same time.


Are you convinced, now??
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 11:57

I looked the source up, "In 2011 a friend said"
viewtopic.php?t=16091
"The newer nano-fiber carbon composites that are being incorporated allows for a total airframe weight reduction of as much as 4 tons!"


but take it for what it's worth. There is enough around to say the f-22 got a skin upgrade.
Anyone remember the alias of the f-22 pilot who posted here?
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 13:42

Ricnunes: you misread what I wrote, I did not say it got its RAM from the B-2 but techniques from it as I posted in the original, perhaps 'and' should have been 'and also' in that sentence to avoid misunderstanding. It's pretty obvious that RAM is an evolutionary thing so they would not have gone back in time, my only qualification for the RAM was that it was advanced which it is.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -u-432983/

Wallace, a former chief of low-observability for the US Air Force’s B-2 bomber, says the F-35 has leveraged LO qualities from the bomber – but he could not elaborate on specifics.

Pilots will see a more advanced low-observable signature on the F-35 versus the F-22, but it’s the maintainers who see the greatest leap in durability.


The RAM on the F-35 is thicker (and more baked in) which will automatically make it better nevermind the maintenance advantage. Did you not also read your own link ?

However, some doubt that the new coatings won't improve the radar visibility of the F-22. Goure also noted, "I would be very surprised if this wasn't an improvement in stealth characteristics."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5572
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 14:13

charlielima223 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The quoted article is provably wrong in one respect, the F-35 DOES have a radar blocker in the engine.


I personally wouldn't know if it does (though I would believe it as LO was a primary design feature) but if it does it would be like the F-22's intake...


Wrong. In the case of both the F-22 and F-35 it's inline with the turbine. Integral blocker / afterburner spray "bars" as I recall.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 14:14

Optimist: if you wish to disbelieve journals when they quote their sources as USAF or Pentagon that is your prerogative but I take a more optimistic view of their veracity.
Last edited by mas on 21 Nov 2017, 14:26, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5572
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 14:24

mas wrote:Optimist: if you wish to disbelieve journals when they quote their sources as USAF or Pentagon that is your prerogative but I take a more optimistic view of their veracity.


That'll change with experience.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 16:47

mas wrote:The RAM on the F-35 is thicker (and more baked in) which will automatically make it better nevermind the maintenance advantage. Did you not also read your own link ?


Yes, I did read "my own link" for Christ sake!!

However what I quoted was an USAF OFFICIAL STATEMENT/INFORMATION!
What YOU quoted was the JORNAL's/LINK SPECULATION/CLAIM!

See the difference??
I try my best to base my opinion on official information. But you seem to form your opinions based right away on any speculation/rumour that you read - so and apparently you simply cannot distinguish between both (what is official information and what is speculation)... :roll:

So and Jezz, is it so hard for you to say:
"I was wrong"
or,
"I stand corrected"

Is it?? :roll:
You should try it some day - It would make you feel better, thrust me.

Anyway, what can be read in the article above is pretty clear! If you want to continue to believe that RAM materials are the be all, end all to make aircraft stealth so that you can justify that a Eurofighter Typhoon can be made with those absurd low RCS values that you often claim here and this among other claims you make, than that's your problem! But let me give you an advise:
- If you're here with the objective of NOT learning and above all, NOT wanting to correct your own mistakes or misconceptions than I believe f-16.net is not the place for you! And then you wonder why people are sometimes rude to you here, I wonder why? :roll:

And with all of this, I REST MY CASE! I won't spend another second of my life debating this with you - This is like pointing to a white wall and I'm saying to you that the wall is white while you insist that the wall is grey... :doh:
I just won't go this way...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 18:18

There is nothing absurdly low about the Typhoon RCS for which I gave two different sources for, the RAF specification and manufacturer detection claims. There was also Atlantic Trident experience I gave you that showed it was not picked up by AWACS//GCI and also its high air kill ratio in Red Flag.

You made up the claim that the F-22/F-35 RCS figures quoted were averages despite statements to the contrary in the articles when only the Russians bother doing something like that. You ignore the fact that the F-35 ram is thicker, has qualities learnt from the B-2 or that a ram research paper showed that you could pick up -30 dBsm from that alone. Yes I think we are done here.

p.s. disagreement with the group herd opinion is never an excuse for rudeness ...
Last edited by mas on 21 Nov 2017, 18:32, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2515
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 18:27

mas wrote:p.s. disagreement with the group herd opinion is never an excuse for rudeness ...


Concur.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 11 guests