Stealth question - Reduction in RCS
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 12 Dec 2013, 17:36
SpudmanWP wrote:taog wrote:PS. what does "in a 40-deg. vertical fan" mean in the picture ?
It represents the space +20 and -20 degrees from the plane of travel.
This picture represents a target's RCS measured from 360 deg. (or +180~-180 deg., horizon) and 0 deg. (vertical)
So "in a 40-deg. vertical fan" means +20 and -20 degrees (vertical) ?
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 12 Dec 2013, 17:36
eloise wrote:taog wrote:Does there have any report or rumor mentioned the JSF RCS spec. earlier than that article (1999/2) ?
Great info, would you mind screenshot or cite the source?
Just done it.[/quote]
I meant like this:
[/quote]
wtf, it's my fault.
I can email it to you but i can not post it on the public forum.
If you want, give me your email address.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1692
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
- Location: San Antonio, TX
People are looking at JSF requirements in early 2000s. Who know what changed especially after program re-baseline.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 12 Dec 2013, 17:36
disconnectedradical wrote:People are looking at JSF requirements in early 2000s. Who know what changed especially after program re-baseline.
JSF's RCS required i heard was mainly determined in JIRD-1 (1995) and JIRD-2 (1997). But it may also change in followed stage (Draft/Final JMS or even SDD phase). So do you have any information ? I am interested in the evolution of the JSF/F-35 RCS spec. changed.
Last edited by taog on 10 Jun 2019, 08:44, edited 1 time in total.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 12 Dec 2013, 17:36
This is the latest version (1997) I found on the internet for the detail of each JIRD. Although the released time of each stage in the picture is correct, i suspect some spec. may change.
Last edited by taog on 10 Jun 2019, 10:54, edited 1 time in total.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
disconnectedradical wrote:People are looking at JSF requirements in early 2000s. Who know what changed especially after program re-baseline.
Exactly. I think they kept the RCS requirements lower than in F-22 because the whole idea was to make a relatively cheap fighter. I think it's entirely plausible and even probable (given later statements about ther respective stealth qualities) that they realized that it'd be possible to have lower RCS without significant cost increase. F-35 definitely has some changes from X-35 that gives better stealth qualities (like integrated canopy bow frame). There has been a lot of development in RAM and RAS which might also be quite a bit better than originally anticipated. There are also other possible reasons like improved manufacturing techniques and all kinds of small details.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 12 Dec 2013, 17:36
hornetfinn wrote:disconnectedradical wrote:People are looking at JSF requirements in early 2000s. Who know what changed especially after program re-baseline.
Exactly. I think they kept the RCS requirements lower than in F-22 because the whole idea was to make a relatively cheap fighter. I think it's entirely plausible and even probable (given later statements about ther respective stealth qualities) that they realized that it'd be possible to have lower RCS without significant cost increase. F-35 definitely has some changes from X-35 that gives better stealth qualities (like integrated canopy bow frame). There has been a lot of development in RAM and RAS which might also be quite a bit better than originally anticipated. There are also other possible reasons like improved manufacturing techniques and all kinds of small details.
Actually in 2001, a report ("Lockheed Martin touts JSF stealth improvement", Aviation Week) said the F-35's RCS was lower than the -30 db requirement.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
Thanks taog, nice find!
I think this is all about stealth technology maturation process. With F-35 there was immense amount of know-how and experience about stealth technology in US military industry and armed services (especially USAF). Also computer systems and software were powerful enough to do things that were impossible with F-22 for example. Same with manufacturing processes, which are often overlooked in the public. So they could develop very good characteristics for RCS while designing relatively low cost multi-role platform.
I think this is all about stealth technology maturation process. With F-35 there was immense amount of know-how and experience about stealth technology in US military industry and armed services (especially USAF). Also computer systems and software were powerful enough to do things that were impossible with F-22 for example. Same with manufacturing processes, which are often overlooked in the public. So they could develop very good characteristics for RCS while designing relatively low cost multi-role platform.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
- Location: australia
F-22 is lower in the targeting bands. The F-35 is lower in the search bands. I think it was chip who said it. I can't find the video. What happens after the MLU is unsaid.
Europe's fighters been decided. Not a Eurocanard, it's the F-35 (or insert derogatory term) Count the European countries with it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest