why does the F-35c have such a large wingspan if its built for carrier operations?
>>29227609
Higher gross weight?
>>29227609
>why does the F-35c have such a large wingspan if its built for carrier operations?
Because it has to land and take off from a 300m long ship maybe?
Like, nigga they fold up like any other carrier aircraft.
>>29227609
lift at low speed.
>>29227609
>why does the F-35c have such a large wingspan if its built for carrier operations?
Exactly, because it's launched from carriers
>>29227609
It should probably be illegal to be this dumb.
F-35B:(USMC)
F-35A:(USAF)
F-35C:(USN)
>>29227609
better control and lift and low altitude low speed... pretty important for carrier recovery. the wings fold up
>>29227651
Fucking kek'd
>>29227609
More lift at low speeds.
Because of halfassed vertical thrust. More variations to version designs of F-35 = more money for pic related.
F-35 = taxpayer milk machine
>>29230194
the C is CATOBAR
>>29227609
With the all black paint they look pretty fierce unlike that faggy grey sky camo.
Any pics of an all black F-22? Bet it looks even more superior to that F-35 piece of shit.
>>29230220
That aint black, its a shitty picture taken late in the day.
And thats not camouflage, its RAM.
>>29230194
>Because of halfassed vertical thrust.
I think you're under-estimating how hugeley impractical VTO is for a fixed wing aircraft. I have no idea about figures for the F35, however I was a groundcrewman in a GR3 squadron in the 80's. To VTO a Harrier at combat weight to a height where it can transition to forward flight without hitting the deck in the process burns around 3,500kg of fuel, about 30% of the internal tank capacity. Unless your sortie consists of popping to the shop at the end of the road, that means you need a tanker loitering somewhere nearby, and that negates anything you gain by not using a runway. On the other hand STO burns around 800kg of fuel, meaning you can stay airborne for more than five minuites.
>>29227609
This plane was a huge mistake. The Super Hornet would have been cheaper and better overall.
>>29230513
wrong on both counts. would you like to try again?
>>29230555
With modern radar, stealth as a meme. Sure, it can still be useful in some scenarios, but it isn't good enough to build your entire fighter fleet around it. It's just a waste of money. Besides, the F-35 is ONLY stealthy from the front angle. Attack from the sides and its toast.
>>29230604
wrong on 6 counts. you can do better. believe in me who believes in you!
>>29230604
In the modern era there are reliable SAMS that can prosecute supersonic targets at ranges in the hundreds of kilometres.
Best aspect stealth might not be undetectable, but they can shorten the detection range enough to allow for SEAD/DEAD to be performed.
>>29230513
the navy is buying F-35Cs to replace its Hornets, not its Super Hornets. The idea is that they will fly F-35Cs and Super Hornets as complements to each other
>>29230469
f-35 is not a harrier
and thats why they call it stovl not vtol
>>29230604
What do you expect to do in contested airspace with your shitty non-stealth aircraft?
Everything else is getting old and has been upgraded so much, its not any cheaper than F-35's will be.
>>29232611
This anon is correct. Since the F-14 was cancelled in '91 and development of the NATF in '92 the FA-18s have been the Navy's only options for CAP and that's the one role they are NOT intending to run the F-35 in. CAP will continue to be provided by the 18E thank you very much.
>>29233610
Well then the Harrier isn't a Harrier either, or at least hasn't been for years. VTOL is a neat trick at an air show but if you want to carry a weapon and a little fuel you need a ski ramp at least.
Build bigger carriers
>>29233730
Or longer launch rails extending beyond the deck.
And use far stronger electromagnetic launchers. A pilot can handle 12 G easily so launching at 10 G forward acceleration should be trivial for the pilot.
This would save a lot of fuel used for the launch alone.
>>29230668
How about some references?
Even if you do not see the aircraft itself any modern wind shear radar will see the vortex generated by the aircraft, moreso from the jet.
From every angle except from the front you will see the tailpipe of the jet engine. Is it even plausible to avoid this lighting up like a torch in infrared? Even non-military thermal cameras can distinguish a delta T of 0.05 Kelvin. And those are per regulations limited in performance. Military sensors are not limited and are far more sensitive and faster.
Anyway, any radar operator seeing a fast moving vortex without an aircraft in front of it will immediately know an attempt of stealth is involved and raise the alarm.
>>29235309
5 incorrect statements. 2/10, see me after class. you can do so much better anon
>>29235326
Try again, this time be more specific.
I worked on radars for a living for more than 10 years. So don't be afraid of providing equations.
You might be a teacher, sunshine, but I was lab assistants for those that ended up as teacher in my time as PhD student.
>>29235502
i doubt a wind shear radar will pick up the vortex of a fighter sized target at any appreciable range. on top of that, given the pure amount of noise from atmospheric conditions, the rejection filters would likely eliminate the returns as noise and fail to generate a track file. moreover, a windshear radar operator isn't looking for aircraft.
while IRST is a concern from both exhaust plume and leading edge heating, atmospheric conditions limit it and I would only be worried about it within about 30 nm (ballpark, unclassified number) - and even then simply cancelling AB would allow me to drive in until probably WVR. after watching my military targeting pod fail to track a cargo plane in IR because of sunlight reflecting off of a cloud decoying it, i'm seriously doubtful of the ability of IRST to generate weapons-quality track. moreover, every generation of stealth aircraft has included IRCCM considerations in cooling the exhaust plume when not in AB.
>>29235291
>>29233730
Or develop a CATOVL aircraft to be operated off smaller carriers
>>29235528
In non-windshear radars the phase noise of the oscillator is too great to see wind shear and for that reason alone it is a good idea to filter out everything below the noise level.
Wind shear is well characterized in meteorology from more tan 30 years ago. A little simplified once you go a few meters above the ground features wind move in cells that rotate around a horizontal axis that has a general direction along the overall wind. You can see this often if you sense the wind on your skin and see the cloud layer moving in the opposite direction. Clouds above that again more in yet another direction.
In some cases there are 90 degree shifts but again that is also very well known and characterized. Meteorology as a science covers a lot from micro to macro scale, much of which is known. Weather forecast is troubled by other issues like lack of data points and too large cells in the simulations.
Wind shear radars are now reaching the point where there are plans to place these in satellites. That will be fun, for all of a sudden you will look down on aircrafts from an angle stealth was never optimized from and also see the jets. Wind shear operators in meteorology do not care about aircrafts since these are of no importance to weather forecast. A military radar operator has a totally different set of priorities.
> I would only be worried about it within about 30 nm (ballpark, unclassified number)
I am sure ionizing radiation is always a concern, I am just not sure how this relates to infrared which is about 2 orders of magnitude beyond this. Do tell, please.
Since we are talking non-classified I note the atmosphere has 2 infrared windows:
3 - 5 um: used by old sensors, capable of easily seeing hot jet pipes. Even exhaust pipes on lorries have successfully been engaged by inventive fighter pilots to engage and destroy lorries.
10 - 13 um: this is roughly body temperature regime, sensed by modern sensors (CMT, bolometers and more).
>>29235616
i fly aircraft. i've had to change crab as i descend.
you can't generate a weapons-quality track from a space radar operating in what i assume is HPRF since it's long-range doppler. your resolution cell is simply too big and any returns would likely be rejected as noise. it doesn't matter what angle you look at it. sure you could direct radars with smaller resolution cells into that airspace, but they'd have similar difficulties correlating returns into a track.
i'm saying i wouldn't be really concerned about IRST if i'm not in afterburner in my old-school 4th gen jet fighter outside of about 30 nm. you should know as well as i do that humidity, pressure, etc. attenuate IR. and yeah, i was tracking that cargo plan in IR.
>>29235673
>your resolution cell is simply too big
Sure?
Commercial radars have resolutions to 0.5 degrees, military long range radars are much better. For sake of arguments (real numbers are classified) we say 0.1 degrees. Sigint satellites operate in low orbits, say 200 km. Transverse resolution then is sin (0.1 degrees) * 200 km which is 350 m. Vertical resolution is defined by pulse length which can be far shorter, of the order of meters.
That is of course for a geometry of a single satellite at zenith. IRL you would use several satellites none of which are at zenith so you could obtain superresolution of the target. There are other tricks you could use like frequency lock between all satellites, bistatic geometry and more.
So you would probably get a track with resolution of about 30 m. Weapons lock is a different matter since this does not helt you unless the AA missile has a live downlink form the wind shear radars, a feature if it existed would be classified.
What you instead could do is to use the satellite data to cue radars to light up only when there is a probability to see the stealth aircrafts by burning through the stealth, followed by a quick launch before the pilots can follow through with counter measures. Missiles would be launched before lock to shorten reaction time even more.
>i'm saying i wouldn't be really concerned about IRST if i'm not in afterburner in my old-school 4th gen jet fighter outside of about 30 nm.
What IRST perform on 30nm?? You repeat this but the band is way, way off.
>>29227609
>MUH AESTHETICS
>>29235842
30 nautical miles away from me, i'm going to be concerned about being tracked on IRST
and you're way overestimating radar beam width.
>>29235867
>>29235842
nm meaning nautical miles, not nanometers.
what sort of aviation work do you do where you're not working in knots and nm?
>>29235883
I stated I was working on radar systems and sensors in which case nm means nanometer.
>>29235867
>and you're way overestimating radar beam width.
I am erring on the side of being conservative. For narrower beam width the resolution obviously improves.
>>29236070
and range is in nautical miles, which should have been obvious from the context of deselecting AB for IRCCM
>>29236076
from the peanut gallery:
nm = nanometer
NM = nautical mile
...just to avoid further misinterpretation, but do carry on guys.
>>29227609
>why does the F-35c have such a large wingspan if its built for carrier operations?
Because it is built for carrier operations. Larger wings mean more lift. Given that a carrier's deck is only so long, you need all the lift you can get just to take off and land the thing when laden down. The wings fold up like a normal CATOBAR aircraft.
>>29237070
i can live with that.
