Re: Stealth Landings?
Another form of stealth.
Hide your Buccaneers underneath a low flying Vulcan
F-35 'incomparable' to Harrier jump jet, top test pilot tells El Reg
What's it like to fly an F-35 fighter jet? We interviewed the chief British test pilot about a uniquely British flying technique – and then had a play with a full cockpit simulator to find out for ourselves. Squadron Leader Andy Edgell is the Royal Air Force's top test pilot for the F-35 flight trials programme. A former …
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 16:06 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Stealth Landings?
'Also, the plane is far bigger than the stuff hanging off it. So it's going to give the largest radar return
Not how RADAR works. To quote Ben Rich, or maybe Kelly Johnson*, RADAR Cross Section has nothing to do with size.
*I can't remember if it's Ben Rich quoting Johnson in his book or just directly stating it. Ben Rich was lead on the F-117 programme so I'm guessing he knows what he's talking about.
-
Friday 19th January 2018 17:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Stealth Landings?
@ X 7
Stealth is not on or off, it's granular and dependant on many factors, with one of the main ones being distance.
Yes, a stealth aircraft with external payload is less stealthy than without, but it's still going to be harder to find over distance than a conventional aircraft would, so you still have an advantage.
It's not about not being seen, it's about not being seen for long enough to let you get the job done.
-
-
-
-
Friday 19th January 2018 12:19 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Stealth Landings?
You can't land on an aircraft carrier stealthily, because youu're next to a giant 60,000 tonne ship that is as unstrealthy as a large building.
As for the radar cross-section of the aircraft, I doubt it makes much difference. Although stealth depends on what angle the plane presents to the radar anyway.
-
-
-
Friday 19th January 2018 16:16 GMT Aodhhan
I'm sure I'll get plenty of down votes, considering the amount of people shouting out things without using much thought or because they place their own prejudices into it.
Terrorists using drones against modern forces is pretty much a waste. Due to the technology they use and resources required, it's actually a negative force multiplier. Primarily because their signals can be tracked and you can't just make one from garage parts. Then there is the fact, they run by line of sight and are easily jammed and shot down.
The USA was able to become a country based on the warfare technology they were able to create along with manpower from the French. Technology wise, the USA found technology to make their small arms much more accurate, quicker to load, and much more reliable. This wasn't something they stole from the UK.
80s and 90s Technology and Japan. Yes, Japan flourished during this time, but not with actually creating the technology but rather manufacturing it. Cheap labor was the biggest factor here.
Technology during this time came from all over. For instance the Dutch had quite a few advancements which spawned off into other items. The USA developed magnetic research (which they didn't steal), and continued with creating most of the processors used by nearly every technology during the day. Again, it wasn't stolen. The USA also declassified a lot of technology they alone developed and didn't steal. Such as high resolution imagery/lenses, fine microwave tech, GPS, lasers, etc.
I'm willing to bet no matter what country you live it, you've taken this technology for your own use.
F35 is what it is. Based on early mock live competitions as well as simulator combat the F35 is far superior to the F18 hornet. Not quite as effective as the F22, but you have to look at the role differences. The F35 can do things the F18 simply cannot, and this goes beyond the VSTOL capabilities.
It's easy to look at things from a narrowed view and repeat things others (who have their own agenda) say.
Seeing this is a forum full of IT professionals, you have the intelligence to take a few minutes and critically think about things and be objective; so try it out. This... we are better and smarter than anybody else attitude is ridiculous; not to mention... how often has this 'attitude' gotten you anywhere?
-
Friday 19th January 2018 22:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Seeing this is a forum full of IT professionals, you have the intelligence to take a few minutes and critically think about things and be objective; so try it out. This... we are better and smarter than anybody else attitude is ridiculous; not to mention... how often has this 'attitude' gotten you anywhere?"
"gotten us anywhere"? In what sense? are we swimming in Cristal and trashing Ferraris? Well no.
But let's measure it another way: how many people here have done a good job? When asked to implement some software to help people, did they generally succeed? And I'll bet the answer is that mostly they have. They understand things that work, how to analyse situations and good ways to solve problems. They probably have a track record of seeing good opportunities for improvement too.
Let's compare that to the military/government. These are the people who failed to get the intelligence right about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, who built vulnerable carriers whose cost overran, that only work with certain types of aircraft, that we don't even have, that overspend on unnecessary inventory to the tune of £500m/annum, but can't provide vehicles to the troops in Afghanistan to protect them from IED attack.
The people in charge, PR men, lawyers, wonks and former union officials that make up most of parliament have never run anything serious. They do little to reign in the bad ideas and decisions of the civil service, most of whom have never done a good job on delivery and remain in their posts even after proving their incompetence.
-
-
Saturday 20th January 2018 00:35 GMT rtb61
F35 Flying Pig
F35 flying pig has only one war to fight and that is umlimited greed and profits, they know it and hence it performs really, really badly, because once you have bought it, you will need to replace it, more profits for ever.
So it is better than the harrier because it has a computer flying for the pilot, a computer that could be post fitted to the harrier quite cheaply but hey, no unlimited profits so evil.
-
Saturday 20th January 2018 00:47 GMT anonymous boring coward
F-35 'incomparable' to Harrier jump jet, top test pilot tells El Reg
The price is pretty incomparable too.
And when will it be delivered? My guess is that it will be delivered soon after the carrier must be scrapped.
Nice toy, until you look at the price tag.
If anyone wanted to cripple us, right now would be a good time to sink the carrier.
P.S: Please try not to use double quoting in the Joey from Friends way...
-
Monday 22nd January 2018 18:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
As a pilot who’s had a chance to fly in an f-35b for real, it's a damn impressive airplane. The only downside in my couple of flights was, as the correspondent mentioned, the relatively inadequate pitch authority of the aircraft and the relatively short range. The avaionics are amazing and the controls are super easy to use. The aircraft automatically stabilises itself and handles stuff like trim for the pilot. All around, a fun plane, despite the price being twice the original quote per airframe and many times more for the development costs.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
