reply to post by C0bzz
Of course, all because Lockheed (and their lobbyists) said so?
The skin of the aircraft and geometry are the huge contributors to RCS. The SE's design will have a rather radical impact on RCS. Albeit, not as
radical as a landing-gear-on-up design, but enough to make the difference on terminal guidance systems and AAA systems.
In CAS - frontal RCS is a minor consideration - you're hardly ever facing what is attacking you, and only occasionally what you are attacking.
Guided munitions reduce frontal RCS focus to an archaic design philosophy.
And of course no export model "exists" - there isn't even a production model F-35. However, the U.S. imposes restrictions on exported
technologies. The F-18E/F's intake RF blockers are not present on the exported models (to name one example). They will not be approved for either
the F-35 or the F-15SE.
Detection/tracking range of the AN/APG-63V3 of a target with the RCS of an F-35 is over 40 nautical miles. The F-15(any model) also has much greater
kinetic performance than the F-35, which has yet to enter kinetic range of its own Aim-120s. By the time it's all said and done, the F-35 is forced
to start singing every tune it knows while zone-fiving it out of the area in hopes of extending beyond the kinetic range of the F-15's still-tracking
Of course - the F-35 is not able to outrun an F-15, and is just a big turkey.
Furthermore - the F-35's LO features are optimized to reduce the effectiveness of high-band radars, more common on SAMs, radar-guided-guns, and
terminal guidance systems. Unfortunately - modern aircraft radars are a little more diverse, and can operate in ranges that the F-35 is rather inept
[Sealed Electronics are Good]
It's a pretty big concern when you rely on a foreign supplier for all of your parts.
Iran learned this lesson the hard way.
With most of the parts and know-how being centered in one nation, it's a serious logistical concern. Survival in combat doesn't hinge on what
capabilities you have... but on what you can actually use. Few military units have operational capability above 80% when it comes to armor and
aircraft. Start losing supply lines... and you rapidly lose all capability.
And, yes, the F-15SE is virtually identical in avionics to the F-35. Hell - the F-15E is extremely similar, especially factoring in the V4 radar
upgrades and the 'plug-and-play' standards emerging as a carry-over from the computer world.
The F-35 comes with some fancier stock equipment... which has yet to be finalized on the production model or figured into per-unit costs.
However, ultimately, the only thing the F-35 has that the F-15 doesn't is all of the airframe-integrated passive sensing equipment that is supposed
to gather detailed information on hostile radars (it's a snubbed version of what is in the F-22). And, in all honesty - it's more trouble than
it's worth for the role of those aircraft.
[Combat Range Concerns]
Interesting way of figuring range and endurance.
Sometimes, it's better to have a larger airframe, more engines, lower spindle speeds, and require less airspeed to stay in the air. The F-35 is, and
always will be, a turkey - as evidenced by available data:
You'll also note the higher payload of the F-15 and the more diverse weapons load.
F-14D could do that? F-117? Or I guess the time spent with Boeing 757 FTB and Boeing 737 CATB are complete wastes of time. The F-14D was good
enough after all (as was the Sopwith Camel).
Sad how all of our accomplishments are meaningless in the scope of time, isn't it?
Enough emo-talk, sources: www.globalsecurity.org...
The AN/APG-71 was unrealized as a surface-strike radar, though there was nothing that prevented it.
The AN/APG-70 had been doing it since 1988, at least.
Of course, you may not be able to radiate some sorry sap on the ground and read his dog-tags with advanced radar imaging like on the F-35... but last
I checked, we were hunting tanks and armor - something the size of an RV, not making sure everyone has their fly zipped.
The overall capabilities of radars haven't changed much since the late 1980s. The move now has all been in how that information is presented to the
pilot and in JTIDS (which has been around for about the same amount of time). We're getting some higher resolutions and better computerized
manipulation of data - but most of that processing power now is all in the processing of JTIDS (which is one of the huge things holding down the F-35,
it's getting its brains busted trying to process the passive-sensor-overkill on that thing and function with JTIDS).
Tell me why, it's what you CONSISTENTLY fail to do. BACK UP what you say with SOMETHING CITED. Tapping your nose and saying trust me gets us
Difference of priorities. I know what I say is true to my knowledge and experience - however deep or shallow that may be. I also treat this as a
casual conversation, I only pull out resources in casual conversation if I have them conveniently on-hand. Additionally, much of my knowledge comes
from documentaries I've watched and conversations I've had with my fellow aviation community. I cannot cite my sources as much as I can reinforce
my personal source with a third-party citation.
Plus, it is my experience that it's best to present an idea and discuss it before presenting sources. Otherwise, most people can't see the forest
for the trees and get caught on details that matter little in the grand scheme of things.
In this case - the grand scheme is that the F-35 is a repackaged F-105..... and I wouldn't get in the cockpit of that thing - ever.
Edit: Tag error
[edit on 8-6-2009 by Aim64C]