Seriously though, why are we buying the non-STOVL versions of the F-35? This is the only version we need.
>>28426032
Because the STOVL version adds weight and the airforce doesn't need to take off vertically, nor do many countries that have carriers capable of launching without STOVL.
This variant has a huge blind-spot, I believe....but I'm not sure if they have a work around on it.
>>28426517
The F-35B isn't VTOL, it is STOVL. Common misconception. That means it takes off over short distances, and lands vertically. It can't take off vertically. This gets the same job done while being much more fuel efficient.
>>28426559
Blind-spot?
>>28426650
It can take off vertically, but it will most likely never do that in operations because you severely limit the payload by doing so.
The blind spot comes from the location of the lift fan right behind the cockpit that restricts rearward view. Not sure how bad it is or what has been done to address it, but rearward visibility does seem to be worse than many other aircraft with higher-sitting cockpits.
It's heavy, expensive, another bundle of parts to break, and has no use unless you only have britcuck sized carriers.
>>28426804
The F-35C is actually MORE expensive.
>>28426817
Because it's a better plane. Much longer range, more lift, etc.
>>28426700
>Blind spot
>In a plane that you see through the fuselage with the helmet
Yeah, no.
>>28426837
Well a blind spot without the helmet. Last I heard, they were having trouble with that and it wasn't yet in use on the currently operational F-35Bs.
Of course, once that does get into service it'll be an excellent fix.
>>28426817
Isn't that because the landing gear was strengthened and it has shit like the arrestor gear? It has better flight characteristics too.
>>28426877
I know that the F-35C has the biggest wings and that bigger wings are supposed to improve certain flight characteristics like take-off, turning, and rate of climb at the price of reduced stability. The question is that if bigger wings are best, then why does the A have smaller wings?
>>28426925
My question is why the inclusion of larger, folding wings, strengthened landing gears and carrier hooks make it so the plane becomes incapable of including an internal cannon like the 35A.
>>28426969
The frame is strengthen to survive carrier landing.
>>28426650
>It can't take off vertically.
It totally can, actually.
>>28426969
The Navy wanted maximum range, that's why. The Air Force said they wanted a gun. The Navy said they'd rather have no gun and a slightly bigger fuel tank.
>>28426925
Bigger wings mean lower stall speed which is needed for landing on a carrier. Also should improve maneuverability due to lower wing loading.
Smaller wings will have a higher stall speed meaning you need a runway to land on and they have higher top speed due to lower drag.
>>28426969
because guns on fighters aren't important, despite its meme status, so of course it's the first to go
>>28426032
Why are you making this identical thread again?
>>28426804
> has no use unless you only have britcuck sized carriers
The following ships would like a word with you:
USS America
USS Bataan
USS Bonhomme Richard
USS Boxer
USS Essex
USS Iwo Jima
USS Kearsarge
USS Makin Island
USS Wasp
>>28426849
>Last I heard, they were having trouble with that and it wasn't yet in use on the currently operational F-35Bs.
You are a couple years out of date.
>>28427317
Of course, we also have 11 carriers that can launch full-sized birds without the gimped fuel load and munitions payload of the B. The F-35C has 150% of the combat radius of the Super Bug, the B's is barely any higher. The advantage on helo carriers is a fast, long-range plane compared to the Super Cobras the USMC has as strike aircraft below STOVL planes.
>>28427492
that and harriers are way old, and even a gimped in range/payload modern supersonic fighter-bomber is vastly superior
>>28427492
10 carriers*
>>28427576
Until the Ford sails, at least.
>>28427576
We only count super carriers as carriers. We have like 20 or so carriers.
>>28427649
helicopter carriers are not real carriers, senpai
>>28427656
Harriers and V22 carriers.
>>28427673
You could operate a harrier and a v-22 off any cargo ship in the world m8
Are they carriers too?
>>28427649
>We only count super carriers as carriers.
We? Who is this we?
Stop lumping me in with your opinions.
>>28427685
Well when they start being used that way they will be. Is HMS QE not a carrier?
>>28426700
Why the fuck would a blind spot matter when the lift fan door is open? It's only open when taking off and landing. If the pilot is moving backwards he's fucking up.
>>28427722
No, even with the door closed it does have a more restricted rearward view than say the F-22 or F-16 (which have the cockpit sitting higher). However, with that helmet mounted sight that lets you see through the plane, that's kind of a moot point.
>>28427722
Dodging bullets, retard.
>>28426032
it sucks.
max G rating is 9 for A 7.5 for C and 7 for B
>>28427740
It's a moot point in general, nobody's actually going to be sneaking up on an F-35 like in a WWII dogfight.
>>28427759
>Implying this is important in any way anymore
>>28426032
>carrying a big ass fan on it's back at all times
literally why
>>28427798
marines want their own fighters
And france/britain can't manage to build normal carriers.
>>28427747
>Dodging bullets
What does that even mean? If somebody somehow got close enough to the F-35 to use a gun against it, then "dodging" is hopeless at that point.
>>28427795
>>28427759
I think it will be less relevant as time goes on, at least that is what the DOD and NG/LM/Boeing believes. All the 6th gen fighter concepts are flying wing design. Which means only one thing, maneuverability is not even considered.
>>28427803
>france
Charles de Gaulle is CATOBAR
>>28427847
Ah ok france is the only other country with catobar carriers.
>>28427869
And Brazil, Sao Paulo.
>>28427795
>maneuverability is not important anymore
yes that why F-35 specs were downgraded from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 during development.
it's because of a doctrine change, definitely not because they couldn't make it turn right.
>>28427878
and they sold one of their catobar to brazil
>>28427759
>Maneuverability is the most important aspect of a fighter in 2016.
>>28427803
queen elisabeth can accomodate either catobar or ski jump.
will some britbong enlighten me why they chose the latter?
>>28427908
Labour (liberal) government spending cuts on defence for DEM PROGRAMS, as well as absolutely ridiculous projected costs for EMALS
>>28427903
f-22 has both stealth and maneuverability.
arguably, pak-fa has it too and for cheaper.
>>28426650
>he says in reply to an image showing a fucking F-35 hovering
Asshole, please.
Even the Harrier could not VTOL with a full combat load and had to make a STOVL roll first. Doesn't mean it's STOVL only.
>>28427926
so why not use a steam catapult?
>>28427927
>plane that can't fly
>"has it too"
cool story brah
>>28427887
The F-35 can turn just fine. No, it can't make quite as sharp turns as Eurocanards but it can turn well enough to perform adequately in a 2016 dogfight. The plane's main job is to serve as a mobile launch platform for air-to-air missiles. The missiles can out-run and out-turn anything that flies, and that's what really matters.
>>28427937
Steam cats are insanely expensive to maintain and operate.
>>28427937
Expensive and requires a nuclear powerplant if you actually want it working half decently, which adds its own problems.
>>28427927
lol no
>>28427946
this is swamp gas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN9t8hs4l_E
>>28427947
>he missiles can out-run and out-turn anything that flies, and that's what really matters.
It really isn't, chum. Not that what you said is strictly true, either.
>>28427927
I'm still not convinced that the PAK FA is actually stealthy. Just look at those exposed engines.
>>28427991
Lets not go down the road of calling the slav's magic little plane what it is, anon.
It rarely ends well.
>>28427991
>thinks engine covers are engines
stop posting.
also, see pic related.
>>28427947
>The plane's main job is to serve as a mobile launch platform for air-to-air missiles
so why it can carry only four of them internally?
>>28426877
Part of the reason it costs so much more than the other variants currently is because the navy has bought so few of them and they'll always be the least numerous variant.
Price is rapidly going down on the A and B versions because more and more are going in to production.
Production lot LRIP-9 was signed in November and contained 42 As, 12 Bs and only 2 Cs
>>28428028
>He doesn't know about CUDA
>>28428044
>paper missile
>>28427947
missile performance depends greatly on how much energy it has available at launch and how much it loses while intercepting the target.
a plane that has more power and turn rate will have an advantage whether it's firing a missile or evading it.
>>28427926
Tories were the ones who were going to go CATOBAR as soon as they were in office. Then they found it'd cost at least another £2 Bn to redesign the flight deck blocks and certify everything (because BAE are fucking sharks), which they couldn't afford due to the spending cuts they HAD to make because of Labour.
Labour actually spent lots of money on defence. The problem was that it was money that the govt. didn't actually have and they'd always promise more than they could afford - which was a recipe for disaster and left an absolutely massive black hole in the MoD's finances.
>>28428028
Anon, that's 4 more internal missiles than any other production aircraft, except F-22 of course. Let's be realistic, Raptor is the plane to beat in A2A; F-35 just fills things out.
>>28428203
If an F-35 went up against and F-22, the F-35 would have the advantage because of IRST. The F-22 only has radar. The F-35 has a package of several advanced sensors that it can pool data from.
>>28428203
pak-fa (if it's ever finished) will have six internal missiles like f-22
and who knows how many will the j-20 have
>>28428235
But that's retarded, you should be focusing on how they work in concert; F-35s acting as a forward sensor net that sniffs out targets for F-22s to mug. You probably won't beat the AMRAAM surprise, but if you somehow manage it, you get the grand prize of six more, brought to you at almost Mach 2 and with as little warning as the first time around.
>>28428289
Sure, but are either of those finished? No, so I'll stick to that point.
>>28428289
As of right now the J-20 has four internal missiles because Chinese AAMs are giant.
>>28428289
The F-22 carries 6 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s.
The PAK-FA carries 4 Radar-guided, 2 IR.
>>28428290
if you fire an amraam without a radar lock, how do you prevent it from locking on the f-35 instead of the enemy? AFAIK IFF is L-band and AMRAAM seeker is X-band
also, it's four more. side-bays contain only sidewinders.
>>28428346
and the main bays carry 6.
>>28428333
>>28428346
the lower bay fits six? ok i stand corrected.
>>28428346
Why would you fire without a lock when you can piggyback one off the F-35s? Especially if they just fired
>>28428370
The hilarity is that the F-35's Block5 upgrade includes a dual A2A internal rail, raising the internal AIM-120 load to 6.
Meaning the F-35 will carry as much internally as the PAK-FA, and more than the J-20
Those xbox-huge combloc missiles are really coming around to bite them in the ass. They need to scale that shit down.
>>28428346
Easily, the seeker activates a pre determined distance from the firing aircraft
also IFF trackers
>>28428398
>the cuda is coming
>macross missile spam was an accurate prediction
>>28428398
> Notional
>>28428366
Fighters can intercept cruise missiles?
>>28428415
Thats already what happens.
SARH missiles don't go pitbull off the launch rail.
>>28428423
Not only is that yes, but it is very easy. Also the F35 will assist in ballistic missile tracking and intercept.
>>28426032
STOVL version is US $107 million, CTOL is $83 million.
>>28428392
so the f-35 reveals itself and dies?
>>28428423
Yes, though detection and discrimination is tough.
>>28428423
why not? it's been done in ww2
>>28428007
And what does this prove?
That Russia can paint over their exposed, last-gen engines?
India pulled out of the PakFA because they don't believe Russia can deliver true next-generation engines.
>>28428618
>over-exposed
it's called aerodynamics.
apparently russians consider lift-to-drag ratio more important than rear-aspect stealth.
>last-gen
true. but the next engine should be ready in 2018. let's wait and see
>>28428707
We should have heard rumors of protoypes by now....
I am willing to bet that the RuAF and IAF knows more about the status of the aircraft than we do. The orders have only gone down, it is clear that all is not well with the project.
My guess is that the aircraft gets put on ice for a few years then comes back ~2020 with new engines.
>>28428707
>2018
Jesus Christ.
And that's from a slavshill so it's probably optimistic.
What a mess.
>>28428346
>if you fire an amraam without a radar lock, how do you prevent it from locking on the f-35 instead of the enemy
To "fire an amraam without radar lock" means to fire it in track while scan mode, where you are still using your radar to look at the enemy, but you are not directing ALL of you radar energy at the target in question. Since you are only using a fraction of the radar energy, the target might ( probably wont) know you are looking at him with radar, and you can still launch an amraam at him this way. The only time he will KNOW an amraam is incoming, is when the missile turns on its own radar, about 5 to 10 nm and <10 sec from impact.
I know much much less about the amraam's ability to be fired using data linked targeting info, but basically, from what I know, the launching aircraft can leave its own radar off, receive info from a buddy ( or awacs whatever), put this info into the missile, and fire.
So for example, the SU-27 will see an AWACs on its 9 o'clock, 200miles away. The F-22 or 35, on the SU's 12 o'clock will use the data from the awacs to fire amraams, and the SU will never know that an enemy was at his 12, until his RWR screams at him that an amraam is in the terminal phase headed right for him.
>>28428745
Oh, and I forgot to explain the rest. You can fire an AIM-120 in TWS mode and keep the target painted until the missile hits. This way the missile will fly all the way there listening to your aircraft's radar's instructions for the intercept. Only at the last, 5nm or so, does it turn on it's own radar seeker to find the target. I THINK, if the target is still bugged in TWS or STT radar modes, the missile will also listen to the aircrafts radar too, using both sources of info.
But you can also launch one "fire and forget". After you bug the target in TWS and fire,( or fully lock him up in STT and fire), if you lose radar track of the target, or deliberately snip the radar track ( maybe you want to 180 and gtfo away after launch), the missile will use the target's last known vector and try to predict where the target will be, and it then heads to intercept. Same as before, it turns its seeker on when it thinks it is in the terminal phase of the intercept.
Now, if there was a friendly really really close by to the target, or where the amraam thought the real target was headed, it may lock onto that instead, lacking any other guidance from the launch aircraft. IIRC this is called launching an AIM-120 "mad dog".
But with the modern stuff, what with all the classified new fangled data links and IFF, who knows if amraams still work this way.
>>28428346
AMRAAMs have a 2-way data link; F-22s and F-35s will (eventually) be able to talk to each other; so the F-22 tells the AMRAAM not to lock onto the guy at XYZ. Or, if they can't talk to each other, they give encryption keys to each other before entering the combat zone and when the missile is launched, the F-35s tell the AMRAAM "don't hit me bro" as well as give it updates on where to fly to hit the enemy.
>>28428460
Hardly. Your two SU-35s come across two F-35s flying clean. Both launch AMRAAMS and bug, while cuing an F-22. Now, if you're radiating, you're as good as dead; your first warning will be the missiles going terminal. You could go in without radiating, but that just increases you chances of getting spotted first, fired on first, and being forced to bug out or eat an AMRAAM to the face. F-35s don't even need to fire on you; they can just run you around chasing ghosts until the F-22 shows up.
Assuming at least one SU-35 survives, before it can even begin to try and track down the F-35s, it has to get past the F-22, which is stealthier, faster, more manuverable, and more lethal. To boot, there's an added layer to the entire game; even if you don't radiate, the F-22 doesn't have to radiate to kill you. An F-35 can illuminate you from a standoff distance while the F-22 silently puts you in the no escape zone.
This is why everything that's not VLO is pork; when your enemy can engage and disengage at will, dictating the course of the fight is impossible.
>>28428994
Minor note, but the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22, at least from the front:
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
>>28429076
Is it now? I read the opposite, but that was a while ago.
Does F-22 still have the edge in all aspect and IR stealth?
>>28428878
>AMRAAMs have a 2-way data link
can anyone confirm? seems unlikely to me. one-way datalink is possible through fire-control radar, but two-way would need a second antenna on a missile and a dedicated receiver.
>>28428994
as anon already pointed out, amraam is not fire-and-forget. it's semi-passive, and it needs to have the target illuminated by a radar until it gets within the effective range of it's own active seeker.
even a LPI radar will light up a RWR in TWS mode. so one of the aircraft participating in the attack will inevitably get revealed.
what would make more sense in this scenario would be to have f-22 provide the illumination, and f-35 the missiles.
![F-35_RCS_Test03[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/35LE1cQ.jpg "F-35_RCS_Test03[1].jpg")
>>28429133
>I read the opposite, but that was a while ago.
Was that the "F-22 = marble, F-35 = golf ball"?
If so, that came from 2005, before the first F-35 was fully assembled. They didn't even do RCS testing on the actual jet until the late 2000s (pic related).
>All aspect
Maybe, but the F-35 has a stealthy tail as well.
>IR
Unlikely; one of (if not) the biggest contributors to IR signature is exhaust plume. The F-35's engines are just F-22 engines with a greater bypass ratio and some upgrades, so the F-22 was almost certainly have a larger IR signature.
>>28429188
>it needs to have the target illuminated by a radar until it gets within the effective range of it's own active seeker.
Thats not true at all.
>>28429188
Except that's wrong, the mid course updates are entirely optional because of INS. AIM-120D introduces enhanced GPS/INS alongside 2 way datalink.
>>28429232
>has a stealthy tail
round nozzle - no stealth. they made it jaggy but that's mostly for show
>>28429188
2 way data link confirmation from Raytheon (see the subtext of the F-22 image):
http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/airdominance.html
>it needs to have the target illuminated by a radar until it gets within the effective range of it's own active seeker.
It doesn't need illumination, it just needs target data, which you can get from either ESM or IRST.
>>28429270
>round nozzle - no stealth. they made it jaggy but that's mostly for show
>>28429232
The reason why the F22 went for vertical TV only was because flat nozzle disperse heat better. This is public knowledge and something that is mention in the Russia state media documentary about possible future PAK FA upgrade.
>>28429288
>Don't use S-ducts because "More engine power!"
>Use 2D TVC, reducing engine power
ayy lmao
>>28429288
Partly; one of the big reasons is because having 2 4 big slabs to organise active cooling in is easier. The F-35's nozzle petals though are actively cooled as well.
Also, jagged nozzles that are good for radar stealth also = good for IR reduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIKZjARXcos
>>28429310
>me
>having 2 4 big slabs
I meant 4 per engine; 2 nozzle petals and the sidewalls.
>>28429288
>flat nozzle disperse heat better
yeah because that really helps when you have two 80 MW heat sources on your plane
>>28429350
In fact, every little bit helps. Engagement with IR sensors and guidance is short as is. Reducing IR signature, however slightly, makes the RF features more effective.
>>28429350
Yes, it does. Detection is not a binary, the more you can do to reduce your IR emission the closer your IR seeking opponent has to get closer.
>>28429405
so the AIM-120 can both be used in a active or semiactive seeking modes?
meaning that until the terminal phase, the missile is semiactive right?
>>28429460
If by semi-active you mean it's INS can receive updates through the 2 way data link.
I deleted that post because what I said was explained better by other anons.
>>28429460
Dunno who you're link to, but AFAIK the AIM-120 will always turn on it's own radar for terminal interception; otherwise there's too high a risk of it missing (the radar might be 150km away and due to EW being used by the enemy, the radar lock might be 10m off / the enemy might be too far away for the missile's frag warhead to get it.
Still, I could be wrong.
>>28429460
Were you asking if AIM-120 can home on radiating sources like HARM?
>>28428398
To speculate.
Given that there are no photos of missiles on the inner pylon, I am lead to believe that the F-35 can currently only mount a2a missiles on the door pylons until that dual rail is introduced.
>>28429662
Might not be pictures of it, but pic related is weapons deployment test for the inner pylon from 2013.
>>28429708
Rekt
>>28429662
Because there are no photos of the PAK-FA with missiles, I am lead to believe that it cannot carry any weapons whatsoever.
>>28429800
you went full retard defensive
>>28429270
The flat nozzle on the F-22 is for thrust vectoring, buddy.
>>28429898
Nah it was pretty good actually.
>>28430139
>The flat nozzle on the F-22 is for thrust vectoring, buddy.
Just like the flat nozzles on the B-2 and F-117, amirite?
>>28429800
Seems like like reasonable statement. Lol
>>28430261
On those it was more because they couldn't model a stealth plane in 3d yet. The F-35 is smaller in RCS than an F-117 and about on par with the B2.
>>28430139
>>28430261
Is it really impossible for said flaps to reduce RCS AND provide thrust vectoring?
>>28429288
This - mostly. A flat nozzle provides a thinner vernier of exhaust when viewed from above or below, which reduces IR visibility from these critical aspects. It also mixes and diffuses with surrounding air more readily, minimizing the temperature plume. It's also mechanically and geometrically simpler, though I'm not so sure it's beneficial from an RCS standpoint (round surfaces are bad for RCS, but 90-degree internal angles are even worse, generally-speaking).
>>28429350
>Remaining in full afterburner when a heatseeker is inbound
fullretard.jpg
And also what [>>28429367] and [>>28429382] said.
>>28429188
>as anon already pointed out, amraam is not fire-and-forget.
Yes it is, completely so from Pitbull onward and optionally even during inertial midcourse. The drawback of course is that if you DO "forget" an AMRAAM during midcourse, it won't know what the target is doing and won't be able to correct for any maneuvers/course changes the target makes during midcourse until it acquires the target (if it even does at all).
>even a LPI radar will light up a RWR in TWS mode.
So "low probability" = absolute certainty? Cool story bro.
>>28428423
Not really, but everybody pretends so carriers won't be turned into museums like they deserve.
Every once in a while they will do a "test" in which they send a drone along a predictable flight path that they know in advance. They blow it up with a fighter under ideal conditions and then say "No one could ever mass more than a one cruise missile in a single attack! Super carriers are literally the most important and relevant thing forever!"
>>28430575
>On those it was more because they couldn't model a stealth plane in 3d yet.
But the F-22 is an exception? Don't be silly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Infrared
>The F-35 is smaller in RCS
Yes, *frontal* RCS.
>>28428423
Of course they can, under the right circumstances.
I wouldn't put my money on either fighter-interception or ground-based, though. Airstrikes (by bomber or cruise missile) are very difficult to stop once underway, and air defense is and always has been a game of attrition.
>>28430751
2/10, too much vitriol, not enough substance.
>>28430770
>Yes, *frontal* RCS.
I love how people keep saying this as if it isn't the most important part.
>>28427492
So your fucking dipshit solution is to intentionally neuter 9 existing ships?
Great plan...
>>28430900
Reading comprehension.
>>28426650
>F-35B isn't VTOL
I fuckin saw it here at MCAS Miramar last September. Definitely is.
>>28427269
>guns aren't important on a fighter
Get out. We learned this lesson 50 years ago
>>28431184
Muh Vietnaaaaaam
>>28427685
If they carry aircraft, id say that they are aircraft carriers.
Problem?
>>28431184
The Vietnam where US Navy Phantoms didn't use guns and performed better than USAF Phantoms using guns? The same one where even the USAF Phantoms achieved most of their kills with missiles?
>>28431184
Obligatory.
F-35 is literally 55 years old, why is your goverment spending money on making new ones when it already exists?
>>28431259
"Source (USAF)" not exactly the most credible source but ok
>>28431259
Also:
http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/October-2009/Top-Gun-40-Years-of-Higher-Learning/
>Navy pilots were registering kill ratios of 13 to 1, while the Air Force, which [added guns to their F-4s, but] did no comprehensive overhaul of its approach to combat, actually saw its kill ratios worsen for a time.
More here: http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/the-f-4c-phantom-ii
>>28431291
Thats a j35, pleb
>>28431311
Is that the best you can do?
>>28430891
As much as radar stealth, and VLO shaping on aircraft is, so is proper intelligence on your enemy's radars. VLO absolutely helps, but if you suddenly have a radar pop up 15 miles from you, that you intelligence failed to account for, you're in for some shit VLO or no. The neato thing is, the F-35's sensor suite is suited for this environment, and can scan for such pop up threats that may have been missed, so even at a VLO disadvantage, it can have the intel advantage and coordinate itself and likely other strike groups to account for this new target.
>>28431851
>if you suddenly have a radar pop up 15 miles from you, that you intelligence failed to account for, you're in for some shit VLO or no.
True, but forcing the enemy to maintain such tight EMCON just to have a shot at downing a stealth fighter is quite crippling in of itself.
>The neato thing is, the F-35's sensor suite is suited for this environment
Ehhhhhh.... not really. EO-DAS makes sure you won't miss the launch, and the low RCS itself ensures that they'll have to light you up like a Christmas tree just to get a return (meaning your RWR has a massively better chance of picking them up, even if they're LPIR), but spotting them real-time before they go loud is still pretty challenging. I suspect SAR would be your best bet (or MTI if they're using shoot-and-scoot tactics), but that requires emitting. Might be better off just running silent and tolerating the risk.
>>28432085
EODAS and EOTS can look for the heat signatures of the trucks and generators in the SAM battalion (at a short / medium range of course). Or, if you do want to run SAR, you can just have one jet take the risk while others fly along on standby to provide EW support if it's engaged.
>>28432163
>EODAS and EOTS can look for the heat signatures of the trucks and generators in the SAM battalion (at a short / medium range of course).
EOTS is the telescope... plenty of detail and sensitivity but very narrow field of view. Hardly sufficient for scanning everything in front of you.
DAS has a whole-sky view with staring arrays, but the magnification is pretty poor. It's sensitive enough for missile launches but I think you'd have to be VERY close in order to pick up the thermal signature of a truck.
>Or, if you do want to run SAR, you can just have one jet take the risk while others fly along on standby to provide EW support if it's engaged.
That's probably a wise approach.
>>28432300
Pretty sure there have been tests of the F-35 detecting ballistic missile launches with EODAS, though I think they may have failed. This was over a year ago and I may be incorrect.
>>28431259
>tfw the image you made becomes a minor /k/ meme
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3d7H2uo.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>28432626
They didn't fail; an exercise coincided with the test launch of a Falcon 9 rocket 800 nautical miles away. During the exercise they had a BAC 1-11 fitted with the F-35's radar, EODAS, etc for testing, participating in the exercise.
They decided to see if they could track the Falcon 9 launch from the BAC 1-11 and it turned out they could, fusing data from the EODAS and radar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZrvAFRhQZc
>implying the US military would avoid building a fuck huge runway at any opportunity
>read some military blog
>guy says we should cancel the F-35
And closed
>>28432711
So does this constitute a mature capability, or is it just an 'oh, cool' sort of thing?
>>28432772
imo it looks like the DAS system will be pretty capable at identifying enemy missile launches. Hopefully it will be more capable at detecting IR threats than all current MAWS, I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
>>28432772
The core of what was demonstrated (the detection and tracking of the missile by fusing EO-DAS and radar data) is a 'mature' capability, but detecting ballistic missiles might not be in it's official repertoire of capabilities.
Another 'mature' capability of the jet is "You Are The One", where it can detect whether a missile is headed towards it (and whether it needs to deploy countermeasures).
>>28432862
The EO-DAS is actually primarily designed to be a MAWS; the other stuff like projecting it onto the visor to let the pilot see through the plane is secondary.
>>28432862
Probably helps minimize threats like DF-21D by keeping F-35s between the CBG and the launch positions so there's always someone watching. Also, IIRC, this is the first real BM launch detection capability organic to the CBG, as opposed to relying on shit like the Cobra radars.
>>28432926
Yeah I'm aware, IRST too.
>>28432926
You mean even without an emission for the RWR to go off? That's remarkable.
>>28432973
It's been done before, but yeah it's pretty fuckin neato
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Approach_Warning
>>28432973
Yep, it's not new, but the difference with the EODAS (besides those other features) is that it provides a proper 360 degree, high resolution view. Other MAWS in the past have been much simpler things that simply told the pilot that (eg) there's been a missile launched to their right, or under them, or behind them, etc. EODAS gives you exact coordinates that you can potentially use to drop bombs (if they haven't moved, etc).
>>28428370
You're thinking of the AIM-120A-C, with the big fins. You are correct that the F-22 could only carry 4 internally.
The AIM-120D has much smaller fins, so 6 can be carried--and the F-22's bays were designed with the AIM-120D in mind.
>>28432973
This was aimed here >>28432906
>>28433067
If you mean in regards to the You Are The One thing; yep - obviously the details are classified, but it runs algorithms on the missile path and presumably compares that path with your location vs the location of your wingmen. The end result lets you avoid wasting your flares / chaff and (also) potentially giving away your position.
>>28433132
>>28433067
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_R-hUNbNes
>>28432646
You did good.
>>28430877
What exactly is wrong with surface based interception?
>>28433456
I love how clueless burgers trash talk SAMs for hours, until someone dares speak poorly of standard missile.
>>28433727
I love how clueless vatniks treat S-300/400 missiles like a magic barrier and get asspained when countermeasures are mentioned.
>>28433843
See, I would think the same logic would apply; multi-layered integrated air defense systems with high redundancy of weapons and sensor systems require massive amounts of effort to penetrate.
>>28433923
You're right, here's the effort.
>develope the only VLO aircraft in service in the world.
There ya go
>>28432626
Ballistic missile exhaust puts out a shitload of heat. A radar truck does not.
>>28434560
They put out enough to be detected, though from how far away is unclear. The AG radar is supposed to be pretty kickass as well.
>>28429288
>>28429310
>>28430682
The main reason the F22 uses 2d vectoring is because NASA did the tests and ran the numbers to figure out that 3d vectoring provides only a very marginal increase in performance(something like single digit percentage points) for a massive increase in complexity.
>>28432973
It's not THAT remarkable. MAWS have been pretty abundant since the late '90s, though most systems are rear-aspect only. The F-22's MWS was one of the first all-aspect MAWS, and the F-35's EO-DAS brings the same concept to a whole new level with substantially more powerful, higher-resolution sensors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVrdQhYQI1M
>>28433456
Nothing, I'd argue it's generally more effective than air-based interception, but it's still far from foolproof. The only sure-fire way to stop an enemy attack is to go on the offensive for yourself and take out their assets while they're still on the ground. Otherwise you're going to eat plenty of bombs before you manage to make a big enough dent in their offensive capabilities.
>>28434708
Thrust vectoring in general doesn't provide any meaningful increase in performance beyond airshow wow-factor.
>>28434752
It helps a bit with radar signature control and with cruise efficiency.
eurofighter
