OT: JSF Abilities??

[Camoman]

Well I could have scoured the internet and probably found it myself but I thought it would be better to get some discussion here on what im unsure about since there are alot of seemingly well sourced people around.

 

Taken from RAAF news website;

 

_____________________

 

Q. On the stealth side, there was some reporting in the press that the stealth characteristics of the aircraft have been downgraded.

 

A. There has been no downgrading of JSF stealth characteristics. This issue came up when one letter was changed on one PowerPoint slide on a publicly released document from the JSF Project Office. It read LO instead of VLO as a result of a security classification issue at the time. The slide has been changed back to VLO. The aircraft has been and always will be a very low observable aircraft.

 

Q. How stealthy is this aircraft when compared to a true stealth fighter?

 

A. The JSF is a true stealth fighter. There are only two out there, the F-22 and the JSF. Specific capabilities in terms of radar are highly classified.

 

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4814/topstories/story01.htm

____________________

 

 

My question primarily relates to the quote "The JSF is a true stealth fighter" and although this is supported by the two answers given in the release, it was my opinion that the JSF had good but limited stealth abilities. In this release it is stated that the aircraft is VLO. Can any of you guys give a better answer than this or better define what this means in terms of the JSF abilities(I know it means very low observability) with regard to air and ground based threats??

He pretty much puts it in the same category as the F-22 which to me seems a bit bizarre. Do you think he is doing this as a political move to keep the masses who are unsure about the details happy, or can these two aircraft really be comparable in this stealth ability..

 

Would the JSF really have a small enough RCS to be a true stealth fighter. Im keen to know because although I have heard it has got stealth ability it is new to me to call it a true stealth fighter!!

 

Also as a side note are there any aussies (or others for that matter) here who agree with the sole JSF option?? It seems a bit risky to me. Maybe im missing a crucial point in the debate but thats why im asking the question-->to get more insight.

 

Camoman

[Crusty]

Well I could have scoured the internet and probably found it myself but I thought it would be better to get some discussion here on what im unsure about since there are alot of seemingly well sourced people around.

 

Taken from RAAF news website;

 

_____________________

 

Q. On the stealth side, there was some reporting in the press that the stealth characteristics of the aircraft have been downgraded.

 

A. There has been no downgrading of JSF stealth characteristics. This issue came up when one letter was changed on one PowerPoint slide on a publicly released document from the JSF Project Office. It read LO instead of VLO as a result of a security classification issue at the time. The slide has been changed back to VLO. The aircraft has been and always will be a very low observable aircraft.

 

Q. How stealthy is this aircraft when compared to a true stealth fighter?

 

A. The JSF is a true stealth fighter. There are only two out there, the F-22 and the JSF. Specific capabilities in terms of radar are highly classified.

 

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4814/topstories/story01.htm

____________________

 

 

My question primarily relates to the quote "The JSF is a true stealth fighter" and although this is supported by the two answers given in the release, it was my opinion that the JSF had good but limited stealth abilities. In this release it is stated that the aircraft is VLO. Can any of you guys give a better answer than this or better define what this means in terms of the JSF abilities(I know it means very low observability) with regard to air and ground based threats??

He pretty much puts it in the same category as the F-22 which to me seems a bit bizarre. Do you think he is doing this as a political move to keep the masses who are unsure about the details happy, or can these two aircraft really be comparable in this stealth ability..

 

Would the JSF really have a small enough RCS to be a true stealth fighter. Im keen to know because although I have heard it has got stealth ability it is new to me to call it a true stealth fighter!!

 

Also as a side note are there any aussies (or others for that matter) here who agree with the sole JSF option?? It seems a bit risky to me. Maybe im missing a crucial point in the debate but thats why im asking the question-->to get more insight.

 

Camoman

 

Im honestly not sure how any of us can answer this......actual RCS figures and test results are all classified

[GGTharos]

IIRC the JSF is very stealthy head-on, with more limited stealth from other aspect angles.

[hitman]

I wouldnt expect it to be too stealthy, as its not shaped like either the F-117 or the B2 stealth...dog toothing every opening panel doesnt make an aircraft too stealthy IMHO.

[tflash]

Since the knowledge on stealth advances, chances are the F-35A will be very stealthy when flown clean. The F-35C already has larger surfaces and the F-35B will be even more compromised.

 

The probability that you will fly such a bread-and-butter aircraft in clean config are rather dim, I guess. The internal bay is limited.

 

But then what, without any doubt it will be a superlative "F-16"; with even more powerful engine, plenty of fuel, difficult to acquire visually and more stealthy. And it will cost much less than an F-22.

[D-Scythe]

Same category as the F-22 doesn't mean equal to the F-22. The Raptor is gonna be getting all the best tech the U.S. aviation industry has to offer. The JSF is nothing more than a B+/A- fighter designed from the outset to complement the F-22.

 

F-22 = Batman. F-35 = Robin. Sure, they're both stealthy, but Batman's the master.

[Force_Feedback]

F-22 = Batman. F-35 = Robin. Sure, they're both stealthy, but Batman's the master.

 

Yeah, one of them likes young boys, the other gets his kicks from old men.:rotflmao:

[D-Scythe]

Yeah, one of them likes young boys, the other gets his kicks from old men.:rotflmao:

 

Come on, we all know that Batman, aka Bruce Wayne, has slept with basically every female being in the DC comic universe. The guy defines "billionaire playboy."

 

I mean, Wonder Woman! Have you seen the size of those...ahem, nevermind.

 

Actually, Robin has got his share of action as well ;)

[hitman]

Robin wore his underwear outside of his tights. Batman wore a cape, sometimes with his underwear outside his tights. Who was gayer? Wolverine would kick both their sissy asses.

[Force_Feedback]

Wolverine would kick both their sissy asses.

 

I guess you never saw the cartoons...

 

Cuz Wolvering is pretty 'sophisticated' as well.

 

Oh, man what a gross discussion, let's talk about Jessica Biel's errm, backside in the fine movie Stealth. (Her front side is great as well, back side is even better)

[D-Scythe]

Who was gayer? Wolverine would kick both their sissy asses.

 

I'm sorry, I just can't let this go ;) Wolverine is by far the most over-rated character ever invented by mankind since the dawn of history. He is in serious need of 2 things: a wax job, and his own girlfriend.

 

Batman would bestow upon him 16 degrees of absolute pwnage cause that's how much Wolverine sucks.

 

And FF, I'm a, uh, "front" man myself. IMO, Jessica Biel's best two assets are in front ;)

[hitman]

Ok, he once wore the tights and the undies outside the tights, but that was in the past!! He got his butt shaved and his girlfriends keep getting killed by assassins. Batman just has a utility belt and is a samurai...Wolvie has claws and is a ninja. Wolvie spanks Batman with his own utility belt. Case Closed.

 

And heres Jessia beil.

[hitman]

lol

[TucksonSonny]

Well I could have scoured the internet and probably found it myself but I thought it would be better to get some discussion here on what im unsure about since there are alot of seemingly well sourced people around.

 

Taken from RAAF news website;

 

_____________________

 

Q. On the stealth side, there was some reporting in the press that the stealth characteristics of the aircraft have been downgraded.

 

A. There has been no downgrading of JSF stealth characteristics. This issue came up when one letter was changed on one PowerPoint slide on a publicly released document from the JSF Project Office. It read LO instead of VLO as a result of a security classification issue at the time. The slide has been changed back to VLO. The aircraft has been and always will be a very low observable aircraft.

 

Q. How stealthy is this aircraft when compared to a true stealth fighter?

 

A. The JSF is a true stealth fighter. There are only two out there, the F-22 and the JSF. Specific capabilities in terms of radar are highly classified.

 

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4814/topstories/story01.htm

____________________

 

 

My question primarily relates to the quote "The JSF is a true stealth fighter" and although this is supported by the two answers given in the release, it was my opinion that the JSF had good but limited stealth abilities. In this release it is stated that the aircraft is VLO. Can any of you guys give a better answer than this or better define what this means in terms of the JSF abilities(I know it means very low observability) with regard to air and ground based threats??

He pretty much puts it in the same category as the F-22 which to me seems a bit bizarre. Do you think he is doing this as a political move to keep the masses who are unsure about the details happy, or can these two aircraft really be comparable in this stealth ability..

 

Would the JSF really have a small enough RCS to be a true stealth fighter. Im keen to know because although I have heard it has got stealth ability it is new to me to call it a true stealth fighter!!

 

Also as a side note are there any aussies (or others for that matter) here who agree with the sole JSF option?? It seems a bit risky to me. Maybe im missing a crucial point in the debate but thats why im asking the question-->to get more insight.

 

Camoman

 

To make a long story short: The F-35 is the NATO called FAG-35 and GAY-35 is the Russian nickname!

It is anyway more stealth than the F-22 except the pink dot showing up on the radar from 69 miles away.

I hope this helps, :megalol:

Ok, guys don’t take it seriously I was having this afternoon a barbecue-party and had too much beer anyhow…:holiday:

TS,

[warthogmadman987]

Since the knowledge on stealth advances, chances are the F-35A will be very stealthy when flown clean. The F-35C already has larger surfaces and the F-35B will be even more compromised.

 

The probability that you will fly such a bread-and-butter aircraft in clean config are rather dim, I guess. The internal bay is limited.

 

But then what, without any doubt it will be a superlative "F-16"; with even more powerful engine, plenty of fuel, difficult to acquire visually and more stealthy. And it will cost much less than an F-22.

 

 

I cant say which will be more stealier and i am shure that that info stayed classified for another 60 yrs. But i thought that it shouldnt matter if the JSF is clean or not, isnt everything inside the body of the plane, doors must be opened to drop bombs or fire missiles? Infact i heard somewhere that would probably be one of the most dangerous times for the JSF and the F-22 (or the FA-22 or the... whatever it is) and the military was trying to find someway to reduce radar risks and whatnot when those missile and bomb doors are open. This brings up a question for me, if you are carrying a EMC Pod, can it be used without opening the doors from the inside or not? And how many bombs and missiles can the f-22 and JSF carry, potentially?

[D-Scythe]

Ok, he once wore the tights and the undies outside the tights, but that was in the past!! He got his butt shaved and his girlfriends keep getting killed by assassins. Batman just has a utility belt and is a samurai...Wolvie has claws and is a ninja. Wolvie spanks Batman with his own utility belt. Case Closed.

 

That's heresy. Pure heresy :disgust:

[GGTharos]

I cant say which will be more stealier and i am shure that that info stayed classified for another 60 yrs. But i thought that it shouldnt matter if the JSF is clean or not, isnt everything inside the body of the plane, doors must be opened to drop bombs or fire missiles? Infact i heard somewhere that would probably be one of the most dangerous times for the JSF and the F-22 (or the FA-22 or the... whatever it is) and the military was trying to find someway to reduce radar risks and whatnot when those missile and bomb doors are open. This brings up a question for me, if you are carrying a EMC Pod, can it be used without opening the doors from the inside or not? And how many bombs and missiles can the f-22 and JSF carry, potentially?

 

The internal payload is small - I would imagine it would be used to strike key targets initially, then the aircraft couple come back in a 'non stealth' configuration with more weapons on wing hardpoints.

 

As for the doors opening and closing, the cycle time is -very- small. Just the probability of detection alone is quite small, let alone probability that you'd be tracked.

 

ECm ... well, the F-15C has internal ECM equipment, no need for pods. Same with F-22 and F-35, AFAIK. See those bulges on the F-22's wings? ECM most likely ...

[Force_Feedback]

Ok, which is gayer the (Super)Hornet or the F-35? IMO the F-35, as it looks like a long fat rod with wings sticking out, and it has this ugly engine that was also designed for the Boeing 777, considering its diameter ;)

[hitman]

The JSF is fugly. At least this ugly didnt win...that thing makes my mom look hottt (and thats sad).

[bflagg]

... But i thought that it shouldnt matter if the JSF is clean or not, isnt everything inside the body of the plane, doors must be opened to drop bombs or fire missiles?

 

That's true. but remember.. they will only be open for a few seconds.. then close once the weapon is released.

The F22 spits missles out and the doors are open for like.. at total of 2-3 seconds...

 

By the time the opposing force has time to detect this increased RCS (IF they can) it's too late and a whole bunch of whoop ass is on the way..

[hitman]

That's heresy. Pure heresy :disgust:

Batman pwns Commissioner Gordon. Wolvie pwnd the Hulk. Do the math. :music_whistling:

[bflagg]

 

no doubt whatsoever...

she's very stunning....

[D-Scythe]

Batman pwns Commissioner Gordon. Wolvie pwnd the Hulk. Do the math. :music_whistling:

 

I did do the math. The Hulk can bench over a 100 tons. Wolverine's physiology is largely human. Thus, if the Hulk hit Wolverine, the physical force alone generated by the Hulk's fist would be enough to kill Wolverine a 100 times over.

 

Thus, Wolverine going toe-to-toe with Hulk = bad comic book writing and HUGE fanbase. But hey, Wolverine also survived a few nuclear bombs going off inches away from his head before, so go figure.

 

The guy's the epitome of over-ratedness.

[Pilotasso]

the JSF like the Block 5 F-16A has a HUGE grouth to do in the following 20 years. The first thing they will do is to qualify it for more weapons, because when it enters service it will only festure AIM-9x AMRAAM and JDAM. Then they will develop stealth pylons and missiles. And last but not least, to realise it needs to have the whole pit layout re-designed. No HUD and that start trek console is a bit overkill and wont be very usefull when you have to touch a particular area of the screen under heavy G's, thats IF the pilot can make anything on that messy screen at all, not to mention what that 6 pound helmet will feel like at 8 G's.

 

If my country will replace its falcons it will be this one, but right now for its initial weapons capabilities, unproven airframe and the same price tag as an F-15 just puts a guy off.

[hitman]

I did do the math. The Hulk can bench over a 100 tons. Wolverine's physiology is largely human. Thus, if the Hulk hit Wolverine, the physical force alone generated by the Hulk's fist would be enough to kill Wolverine a 100 times over.

 

Thus, Wolverine going toe-to-toe with Hulk = bad comic book writing and HUGE fanbase. But hey, Wolverine also survived a few nuclear bombs going off inches away from his head before, so go figure.

 

The guy's the epitome of over-ratedness.

Logan drinks Miller Lite. Bruce Wayne drinks champagne. What kind of loser drinks champagne?!:beer::drunk::puke: