Emu Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/WashPostF352.html?utm_content=sf15133773&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=Lockheed+Martin&sf15133773=1 “With improvements, tanks or planes can be cloaked from human observation, car trunks can be made see-through, blind spots can be cloaked to be seen easily or cloaking can even be used as art or included for architectural effects,” said Joseph Choi, a researcher with the University of Rochester’s Institute of Optics. Cloaking, which makes objects partly or wholly invisible, manipulates the direction of visible and near-infrared light or electromagnetic waves around an object as if it weren’t there. For an invisibility cloak or shield to work, the material needs to curve waves completely around all dimensions of an object, and work with all backgrounds and angles of view. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California recently created an ultrathin invisibility cloak – a thin film of magnesium fluoride topped by small gold antennae – that can flexibly wrap light waves around any shape and create illusions to match different backgrounds. It does that by controlling how reflected light is scattered, and therefore what the viewer sees. The cloak’s creators say it can be draped over any object to obscure it or make it look like something else. Cloaking with specifically engineered, artificial materials to bend light waves – or metamaterials – also holds great promise for electromagnetic field cloaking. “For more practical cloaking that can make large objects disappear for the human eye and work for all visible colors (frequencies), we think using standard optics (lenses and mirrors) has a lot of potential,” Choi said.
Cibit Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=182 UK government announce seped up of F35's http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34893614 i5 8600k@5.2Ghz, Asus Prime A Z370, 32Gb DDR4 3000, GTX1080 SC, Oculus Rift CV1, Modded TM Warthog Modded X52 Collective, Jetseat, W10 Pro 64 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Adding JTAC Guide //My Vid's//229th AHB
Emu Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Results of UK Strategic Defence Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015#Royal_Air_Force Royal Air Force[edit] Nine P-8 Poseidons will be ordered. See also: Future of the Royal Air Force Personnel will be increased by 300. Typhoon will be retained for an additional ten years (until 2040) and will receive upgrades. Two additional squadrons will be stood up, bringing the total number of frontline Typhoon squadrons to seven by 2025.[2] There was a reaffirmed commitment to 138 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs (with a total of 24 available to be deployed on board the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers by 2023).[6][7] Nine Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft will be ordered to plug the gap left by the retirement of the Nimrod in 2011 and the scrapping of its successor, the Nimrod MRA4.[2] The aircraft will be based at RAF Lossiemouth.[8] The RPAS fleet will be doubled with the current 10 General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers to be replaced by more than 20 new armed "Protector" RPAS.[9] Fourteen C-130J Hercules aircraft will remain in service alongside 22 Airbus A400M Atlas and 8 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Sentinel R1 will be extended in service "into the next decade", but will leave service by 2025. Shadow R1 will remain in service until "at least" 2030 and two more aircraft will be procured. Sentry AEW1 and Rivet Joint R1 will remain in service until 2035.
Ktulu2 Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 How old is this picture? It shows Canada in the program... I do DCS videos on youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAs8VxtXRJHZLnKS4mKunnQ?view_as=public
Sweep Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 How old is this picture? It shows Canada in the program... And you think Canada will walk away from the F-35? Or they'll end up with a CF-39...... :megalol: Lord of Salt
Ktulu2 Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I hope not, but it sure sounds like it I do DCS videos on youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAs8VxtXRJHZLnKS4mKunnQ?view_as=public
HiJack Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Being in the program does not require Canada to buy the F-35 but they have to provide the cash for the program agreement. They can of course select the Swedish Gripen if they like :P
GGTharos Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 We're not interested in Grippies. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RAZBAM_ELMO Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Essentially the F35 does not meet Canada's needs as far as an all weather interceptor goes. What Canada needs is a twin engine mach 3 capable multi role fighter to reach our vast expanse of airspace which the F35 simply cannot do. Im very glad that we are launching an open competition for our new fighter. Yes the F35 will be included but it will be subjected to all of the same challenges and or mission requirements as the other competitors with no special exceptions. Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass. — Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.
wilky510 Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Essentially the F35 does not meet Canada's needs as far as an all weather interceptor goes. What Canada needs is a twin engine mach 3 capable multi role fighter to reach our vast expanse of airspace which the F35 simply cannot do. Im very glad that we are launching an open competition for our new fighter. Yes the F35 will be included but it will be subjected to all of the same challenges and or mission requirements as the other competitors with no special exceptions. Which is fine. But Canada won't be finding a Mach 3 aircraft out there, unless you made a typo and meant mach 2. Also, with this change, Canada won't be able to engage in any foreign relations, (IE bombing ISIS). But If that's what they're aiming for, good for them! This change also doesn't make the F-35 any less capable, though, it will make the overall price of each aircraft go up. Edited December 2, 2015 by wilky510
GGTharos Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 It's a waste of money. The F-18 has similar flight performance, but is going to be obsolete decades sooner. What else then? Tiffy? Rafale? They won't be any cheaper than F-35's, and they have their own problems. I doubt the Grippen NG is even appropriate for Canada. What's left? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Emu Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Essentially the F35 does not meet Canada's needs as far as an all weather interceptor goes. What Canada needs is a twin engine mach 3 capable multi role fighter to reach our vast expanse of airspace which the F35 simply cannot do. Im very glad that we are launching an open competition for our new fighter. Yes the F35 will be included but it will be subjected to all of the same challenges and or mission requirements as the other competitors with no special exceptions. Well I guess you could ask Russia to make MiG-31s A2G capable, because that's the closest you'll get to a Mach 3, multi-role fighter.
Emu Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 It's a waste of money. The F-18 has similar flight performance, but is going to be obsolete decades sooner. What else then? Tiffy? Rafale? They won't be any cheaper than F-35's, and they have their own problems. I doubt the Grippen NG is even appropriate for Canada. What's left? Assuming he meant Mach 2 and not Mach 3, the EF is the only aircraft that fits that bill unless they're going to buy Russian. Gripen only has one engine and Rafale can't do Mach 2.
wilky510 Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 It's a waste of money. The F-18 has similar flight performance, but is going to be obsolete decades sooner. What else then? Tiffy? Rafale? They won't be any cheaper than F-35's, and they have their own problems. I doubt the Grippen NG is even appropriate for Canada. What's left? I personally agree with you. I think the Typhoon and Rafale will just be as much as an F-35. I honestly think the aircraft Canada's looking for is out of their reach.
PiedDroit Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Also, with this change, Canada won't be able to engage in any foreign relations, (IE bombing ISIS). But If that's what they're aiming for, good for them! .Not sure to understand this, do you think Canada won't be able to do any external operations if they don't choose the F-35? That's a bit extreme. I just hope they will choose an aircraft that doesn't suck the budget dry and ensures reasonable technology transfers.
ED Team NineLine Posted December 2, 2015 ED Team Posted December 2, 2015 Well, its a little off topic, but first you have to decide what Canada's needs truly are. I think the F-35 might be overkill for what they need, honestly, a Super Hornet might make more sense, it wont have the legs of newer generation aircraft like the F-35, but what do we really need? If the poop ever hits the fan and we need a full blown fighter, then they would have to deal with it then, but right now we escort tankers and drop a couple bombs... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
PiedDroit Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Well, its a little off topic, but first you have to decide what Canada's needs truly are. I think the F-35 might be overkill for what they need, honestly, a Super Hornet might make more sense, it wont have the legs of newer generation aircraft like the F-35, but what do we really need? If the poop ever hits the fan and we need a full blown fighter, then they would have to deal with it then, but right now we escort tankers and drop a couple bombs... Good points, I agree, especially the "overkill" part. I think they need something modular. I.e. a basic workhorse that can have capabilities extended through the use of better payload when necessary (jamming pods, smart / standoff weapons). Edit: Sorry for off topic btw. I won't add more here, promise. :music_whistling: Edited December 2, 2015 by PiedDroit
Sweep Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Edit, should have read PiedDroit's post, he mentioned the jamming stuff. :) I think the F-35 is "modular" enough for Canada, you'll get more payload than the Rhino, have an option to be stealthy, and kick everyone's rear end in air to air. Also, I want to see what Canada will name it...CF-3335555? :D Edited December 2, 2015 by Sweep I should read more. Lord of Salt
RAZBAM_ELMO Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Why not fund the development of a fifth Gen Avro Arrow which is designed in and for Canada? Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass. — Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.
RAZBAM_ELMO Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Which is fine. But Canada won't be finding a Mach 3 aircraft out there, unless you made a typo and meant mach 2. Also, with this change, Canada won't be able to engage in any foreign relations, (IE bombing ISIS). But If that's what they're aiming for, good for them! This change also doesn't make the F-35 any less capable, though, it will make the overall price of each aircraft go up. Supercruise with ability to go Mach 3 if needed. Look up Canadas CFB bases. They don't go that far north. So we need something with legs and the ability to intercept fast Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass. — Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.
Sweep Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Why don't we have a Canadian Fighter Requirement/Discussion thread for this? Lord of Salt
Recommended Posts