(Shaken) Most of the conformal tanks have been afterthoughts in the design process. In this context, they are much cheaper and more readily added than a redesign of the aircraft to add fuel. (Hellfire) Right. But I find it weird that all of a sudden they seem to realize.. "Oh I need more internal fuel after all because that's a great way to reduce drag and free external pylons.." and they develop CFTs. Take the F-16 for instance. For a/g missions it typically carries its 2 tanks which could be used for more bombs. Put CFT on an F-16 and you double its payload. Put CFTs on the 1300 F-16s of the Air force and it's as if you had 1300 more F-16s.. So why have attack aircraft not been developped with more internal fuel in the first place? It's true that the F-16 and the F-18 were developped to be polyvalent, but still. (Shaken) We'll see. The F-15 Fast Packs were supposed to have no effect on performance, but F-15Es are limited a gee and a half less than F-15Cs. My guess is we will see similar performance losses in other CFT developements. You end up in this fight between performance and wing-loading (weight). Since wing loading hits you in the aircraft's range, performance will often be the balance factor that loses. That's the case with CFTs. If the aircraft is designed to have more fuel in the first place these drawbacks can be reduced. The perfect example is the F-16XL. Compare it to an F-16C and the difference is huge in term of payload and range. It could carry 12 Mk82 at 600nm on internal fuel. The F-16C cannot even reach 600nm with external tanks if I'm not mistaken. And the XL was capable of supercruise, not the C. The manoeuvrability is even said to have been better. What's more, it's not because an aircraft would be larger that it would be less manoeuvrable. The only problem is a lower t/w ratio compared to the external tanks alternative. But you just have to have a more powerful engine. The difference of price is not that great because the price of the cellule of a fighter is only about 20% of its price. And the purchase cost of a fighter over its entire lifetime is only 20%. Said differently, if the AF had spend ac couple more million to buy single seat F-16XLs instead of F-16C, they'd have had about 2-3 times the bombing capacity for 25 years of service.. 2 more million would have been negligeable over the lifetime of each aircraft. The F-35 is good example of that also, and hopefully this one will be put into service..

"In short, I doubt that given that a Russian IRST can only detect a L-39, with no IR signature reduction, at 50km, that it is going to detect an F-35 outside of AMRAAM range. " The L-29 would have a typically smaller thermal signature than an F-35, as its engine is very small and doesn't emit much in the way of IR. There's no way an F-35's signiature can be reduced without adversly affecting performance, and when the F-35 is at transonic/supersonic speeds skin friction would further amplify its signature. The F-117 isn't a very high-performing aircraft, so IR reduction isn't a problem there.

(Shaken) Sure, that is a defence that any assaulting air force must be concerned with. You need to have SEAD loaded birds on the way out as well as in. Highly focussed jammers and much faster ARMs will make the SEAD threat more credible and more responsive. (B.Smitty) Requiring dedicated SEAD/jamming for deep F-35 raids cuts down on the value of the F-35's "stealth on the cheap". At some point you'd be better off sending in a lone (more expensive) F/A-22, for instance, to do the same job. (Shaken) I think your presumption is that the JSF is a pinhead from the front and a barn door from the back. If this were going to be the case, I would share your concerns. As I state above, my guess based on available information is that the JSF will be very stealthy from the front and average stealthy from the rear. (B.Smitty) When I think 'average stealth' I think F-117, not Super Hornet. ;) (Shaken) Honestly, the value of when shooting at departing forces and the chance of successfully hitting are greatly diminished. The departing aircraft have kinematics on their side as they depart (now much lighter and accelerating away) and are moving from densest to least dense in terms of the defensive coverage. (B.Smitty) Not necessarily. With the advent of networked sensors & shooters, a radar could forward target vectors to dispersed SAMs 'down the line'.

Just a little thought on IR, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the F-35 coated in RAM? And what does RAM convert radio energy into? The Su-30MKI/Su-37's EO complex is state of the art, and I think it would definately outperform that of the T-10s, so, given the right conditions I don't think a 50km track of an F-35 is too unrealistic.

Again, Boris, the Russians cancelled the Su-37 program in favor of PAK-FA, but who even knows if Russia has the ability to fund it, I highly doubt it.

Look man, I really don't mean to ride your nuts, but you don't give enough credit to the US technology and too much credit to Russian technology.

"Again, Boris, the Russians cancelled the Su-37 program in favor of PAK-FA, but who even knows if Russia has the ability to fund it, I highly doubt it" But it IS ready for production, and anyone wanting it would be able to get it. And the Su-30MKI isn't some fantasy daydream, it is quite real (while having very similar systems and performance to the Su-37)

"Look man, I really don't mean to ride your nuts, but you don't give enough credit to the US technology and too much credit to Russian technology " Now who's being naive? Hell, the RAAF is worried sick about the MKI and MKK Flankers, and I think they can safely be classed as independent observers, don't you?

(Shaken) Sure, that is a defence that any assaulting air force must be concerned with. You need to have SEAD loaded birds on the way out as well as in. Highly focussed jammers and much faster ARMs will make the SEAD threat more credible and more responsive. (B.Smitty) Requiring dedicated SEAD/jamming for deep F-35 raids cuts down on the value of the F-35's "stealth on the cheap". At some point you'd be better off sending in a lone (more expensive) F/A-22, for instance, to do the same job. (Shaken) Your single F/A-22 can't carry 2000 lb bombs used to attack hardened targets. A great percentage of the first day of the war targets are of this nature and you'll find a lot of the bombs delivered early on are Mk.84 deriviatives. F-117s were sent into conflicts with SEAD support as well (although they didn't always follow all the way in). As IADS become more sophisticated, the original Bagdad Raid lone F-117 plan will not be viable. While the fully stealthy F/A-22 will stll need support. (Neither Raptor or JSF can carry HARM internally. I anticipate AAGRM will change this, but I have no proof. If not, the AIM-120 follow-on will certainly fulfill the role about a decade from now). The critical thing you may have missed in here is that the SEAD/Jammer aircraft ARE F-35's. The JSF has inherent ELINT and jamming capabilities that are superior to most current systems in this role. Specialized jammer F-35s are also in the cards that have an unprecedented jamming power output provided by a fan shaft-driven generator. (Shaken) I think your presumption is that the JSF is a pinhead from the front and a barn door from the back. If this were going to be the case, I would share your concerns. As I state above, my guess based on available information is that the JSF will be very stealthy from the front and average stealthy from the rear. (B.Smitty) When I think 'average stealth' I think F-117, not Super Hornet. ;) (Shaken) Good lord, I specified a dBsm in the note. If you can't believe the Super Bug is in this RCS class, either use the number or use the Rafale as your example. The key is that the RCS to the rear is still quite modest, even if not as good as the frontal RCS. (Either way, this ignores a huge amount about RCS, which has a lot of variance over the shape of even stealthy aircraft. The dependance on angle of incidence is significant). (Shaken) Honestly, the value of when shooting at departing forces and the chance of successfully hitting are greatly diminished. The departing aircraft have kinematics on their side as they depart (now much lighter and accelerating away) and are moving from densest to least dense in terms of the defensive coverage. (B.Smitty) Not necessarily. With the advent of networked sensors & shooters, a radar could forward target vectors to dispersed SAMs 'down the line'. (Shaken) Shooting against trailing foes is less likely to succeed, not impossible. And there are systems of increasing sophistication that are making penetration more difficult. (Of course, if your IADS is so hot; why aren't you taking on the strikers before bombs off?) This whole line of argument is really pointless. I understand that a better rear-aspected steath would be advantageous, but was traded against cost to make more aircraft available. The percentage of time this will be important should be small (particularly if the rear aspect is still modestly stealthy as I suggest). The JSF is a capability/cost trade-off like any other system. It is a very, very versatile aircraft with a number of unprecedented capabilities. That it is not the best in all capabilities allows it to be quite affordable. (Volume and strong program management allows it to be cheaper than aircraft that are less capable than it in many areas). And what system are you proposing that would be superior against this sort of IADS? All of the other strikers in the world except the F-117 and forthcoming UCAV (X-45C/X-47B) are considerably worse off in this regard. -- Shaken - out --

>>> (D.Jim?) >>> "In short, I doubt that given that a Russian IRST can only >>> detect a L-39, with no IR signature reduction, at 50km, >>> that it is going to detect an F-35 outside of AMRAAM >>> range. " >> >> (Shaken) >> The L-29 would have a typically smaller thermal signature >> than an F-35, as its engine is very small and doesn't emit >> much in the way of IR. > > (Boris) > There's no way an F-35's signiature can be reduced without > adversly affecting performance, and when the F-35 is at > transonic/supersonic speeds skin friction would further > amplify its signature. The F-117 isn't a very high-performing > aircraft, so IR reduction isn't a problem there. (Shaken) Why not Boris? Turbofans are well known for considerably lower IR signatures than turbojets. Simple physics. All hot air is hotter than hot air mixed with cold air. Fifties engine design versus nineties engine design. And the IR signature reducing devices don't seem to be hurting the Raptor's performance. It is the most eye watering monster machine ever to take wing, but it has IR suppression devices on-board. Maybe working at a technology for thirty years has some advantages? Lastly, what do you bet your 50km IRST track value is rear-on? Did you ever think they might not be setting it up in a useful scenario? The Russians have a terrible track record with numbers. Even you have admitted their missile range figures are fanciful. You might want to apply some scepticism to the numbers being presented. And don't get so happy that Russia has been putting IRSTs in fighters since the Flogger. The US has carried IRSTs on every generation of fighters since the fifties. The US leads the world in military IR applications, fielding it in everything from hand-sized UAVs and individual soldiers, up to massive school-bus sized satellites and everything in between. IR ground attack sensors are ubiquitous on US aircraft and have been common since the late sixties. FLIR for ground attack on Russian aircraft? Rare. The JSF you think the Su-30MKI will see has a smaller RCS, a smaller base IR signature, plus IR suppression and a better IRST plus a better ESM suite. The Flanker is in way over its head in this fight, I promise you. Oh, and US missiles hit maneuvering targets. Russian missiles only work against those flying level. That is your combat history of the last decade. Sorry to burst your bubble. -- Shaken - out --