The F-35 Thread

[EtherealN]

Btw, I'm suspecting that I'm going to go "oh obviously" when someone answers this, but what is "LO Restoration"?

[CyBerkut]

My guess is, "Low Observability Restoration", as in special work that needs to be done to bring it back to low observability.

[mvsgas]

Btw, I'm suspecting that I'm going to go "oh obviously" when someone answers this, but what is "LO Restoration"?

I typed this in google:"What is the abbreviation L.O. in the F-35/F-22"

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:a7c941d8-6d85-4983-9820-9f2ced02d5e5

I guess L.O. stands for Low observables, My guess it means repair what makes the aircraft stealthy.

 

topol-m

My point is; It is not that uncommon to see strike aircraft or ground attack aircraft with little to no A2A weapons. How many A2A missiles does this aircraft carry?

Su-24=?

SU-25=?

A-10=?

MIg-21(Air to ground attack, any version)=?

MIg-27(any version)=?

F-5(any version)=?

Su-17/20/22=?

F-111(any version)=?

Tornado (any A2G version)=?

AV8B/Harrier=?

Jaguar=?

Mirage F1=?

Mitsubishi F-2=?

A-37=?

MIrage 3/5 (any version)=?

Find any of this aircraft that carries many A2A weapons while caring A2G and not in testing

It is not that uncommon.

 

The more you have the better. Everyone needs more than 2 A-A missiles. F-35s internal bays have too little capacity IMO. Does anyone know how many weapons the YF-23 could carry in its internal bays in comparison with F-35/F-22.

04-12-2009 12:58 PM

I have been looking around and I believe the YF-23 was never tested for weapons release, so very little reliable, believable info is out there about it. I doubt that it would be to far from YF-22. X-32 had the same caring capability as the X-35

Edited April 13, 2009 by mvsgas

[EtherealN]

I'll say it: oh obviously...

 

Thanks. :)

[Pilotasso]

Where do you get that from? All versions feature stealth technologies. There is not even a hint the F-35A would be more stealthy than the others. There is some discussion though if the international export versions will feature the same level of stealth-enhancing mesure than the US ones.

 

 

For partner countries remains to be seen (tech transfer is still on debate) but for all other export countries the US has still to evaluate and establish the allowable RCS for export for all variants. (all stealth)

 

I dont have the source here (at work), I read it somewhere (reccomended) plus I got some other inside info I am not going to release despite not being classified. So take it --as is-- if you are willing.

 

Cheers.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Pilotasso

[LaRata]

Where do you get that from? All versions feature stealth technologies. There is not even a hint the F-35A would be more stealthy than the others. There is some discussion though if the international export versions will feature the same level of stealth-enhancing mesure than the US ones.

 

_Remember ... The F-22 and F-35 uses some Modular Tech. that made this planes more Stealth. This tech will Not be Exp. Out the US. ( Only for UK ?? )

 

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr040416_1_n.shtml

 

" Up to US$1 billion of the projected cost overrun on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is attributable to the development of 'anti-tamper' (AT) technology to protect stealth features on the JSF, together with a 'sanitized' and probably less stealthy export configuration of the fighter. "

 

" The clear implication is that the 'international' JSF would have a larger RCS than the US version, would be easier to detect by hostile radars and would consequently be more susceptible to attack. That, in turn, would have consequences for the overall effectiveness of the fighter. Like other LO aircraft, it does not carry active jamming equipment or a towed decoy, and it cannot use high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles when in stealth mode. "

 

 

_The are to many Sites in the Net for the F-35. :) Information Near the reality in all these Net Sites ; Not Sure ??? :(

 

_Only Few Sites below ...

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030907-1.html

 

_ Sensitive Technology For export ?

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2593.html

 

LaRata

[Wilde]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html

 

Several terabytes of sensitive data have been stolen in a computer hack. :shocking:

[GGTharos]

Go figure, eh? Just when you thought the whole 'plans for president's chopper stolen' thing would have taught them a lesson or two.

[Pilotasso]

It apears Stelth and sensors remain outside the internet access, so whoever got the data will probably know by now if the F-35 can supercruise, turn rates or have nice cutaway drawings.

 

Manufacturing is a whole new game though. the Surprise factor is diminished. But the effects it might have in any confrontation might be hard to exploit.

[nscode]

Good. Now that it's open source, maybe we'll see some nice third party mods ;)

[Vault]

Good. Now that it's open source, maybe we'll see some nice third party mods ;)

 

LMFAO :megalol:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It apears Stelth and sensors remain outside the internet access, so whoever got the data will probably know by now if the F-35 can supercruise, turn rates or have nice cutaway drawings.

Well, we are told these are not stolen. One never knows what is fact and what fiction when military talks.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Good. Now that it's open source, maybe we'll see some nice third party mods ;)

LOL!

[GGTharos]

Yeah, that's right - I mean they probably just made the whole thing up anyway ;)

 

Well, we are told these are not stolen. One never knows what is fact and what fiction when military talks.

[GGTharos]

I doubt it - no one cared for 3rd party mods to the MiG-29 when it got open-sourced ;)

 

Good. Now that it's open source, maybe we'll see some nice third party mods ;)

[*Rage*]

Everyone knows the F-35 is for girls.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yeah, that's right - I mean they probably just made the whole thing up anyway ;)

If you say so ...

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[59th_LeFty]

I doubt it - no one cared for 3rd party mods to the MiG-29 when it got open-sourced ;)

 

Your point is that even that technology might not interest anyone if real capabilites would be shown? :D

[GGTharos]

Or that it'll be used for other reasons than modding :D

[Wilde]

I think it's safe to say the stolen data will be used in one or another way. No-one would do something like that without the intention of at least selling the data to someone who might need/utilize it.

 

That being said, any speculation about who took it or which data was compromised is pointless. According to the article they don't even know yet which data was taken. They're quickly accusing Chinese sources, of course. But that's questionable imo. Such a hack can be done by anybody with enough skills and criminal intend. Laying a trail to China ensures guaranteed finger pointing.

[GGTharos]

China, Russia, North Korea - the few countries with keen interest in stealth technology. But yeah, who cares who it was; the important thing is that it happened.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

China, Russia, North Korea - the few countries with keen interest in stealth technology. But yeah, who cares who it was; the important thing is that it happened.

What about Brazil? Or Argentina, India, Australia, Israel, Greece, UK ... Actually, I cannot think of a country in the world that is not interested in Stealth technology.

 

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[Pilotasso]

Brazil has no money to develop its own fighter.

[GGTharos]

Or like, you know, 'anyone'. Question is, which one actually matters? ;)

 

What about Brazil? Or Argentina, India, Australia, Israel, Greece, UK ... Actually, I cannot think of a country in the world that is not interested in Stealth technology.

[EtherealN]

And there are many countries that already posesses some stealth technology and might be able to use a small boost to good effect - even if it might not be on aircraft. In the case of my native sweden - who knows, maybe some guys at Kockums decided it would be sweet if some of that stuff were usable on a possible future Visby upgrade package. Or Ericsson looking for information that might guide it's future radar development work. Etcetera. Doesn't have to be towards the purpose of building something similar to the 35.