Chinese 5th Gen Fighter Photo - Aviation Week

**ArtyEngineer** · 02 Feb 11,, 05:11

Originally Posted by Stitch

Only if you talk to the plane in Russian.

I think the "Thought Control Software" meant you had to "Think" in russian

**gunnut** · 04 Feb 11,, 18:43

I think you guys have MiG-28 and MiG-31 mixed up.

**highsea** · 04 Feb 11,, 19:04

Originally Posted by gunnut

I think you guys have MiG-28 and MiG-31 mixed up.

The MiG-28 was developed from the MiG-31.

I know this because Firefox came out in 1982 and Top Gun came out in 1986.

**Gun Boat** · 04 Feb 11,, 19:20

The Mig 28s do have a problem with their inverted flight tanks. They cannot do a negative G push over.

There have been reports of F-14s being in a 4g inverted loop though.

I'm only going off a doco I once saw labled 'TopGun'.

Also, Mig 28s also suffer from missile hits that cause them to stop in Mid Air. Their engines go into reverse and their cockpits start to produce soft serve cones.

50 cents from Mcdonalds.
Something that needs to be watched.

**cr9527** · 10 Feb 11,, 21:45

Anyone else notice this? And how much will this effect RCS?

They look like big tumors...

**Phoenix10** · 10 Feb 11,, 23:37

Originally Posted by cr9527

Anyone else notice this? And how much will this effect RCS?

I'm no expert on RCS, but I would think that if those features are treated correctly (as I'm sure they are), they would not have much effect on RCS. The F-117 was stealthy because of all if its flat surfaces and lack of protrusions. Once we got higher computing power we were able to achieve the same thing (better actually) with continuous curvature and blended bodies. I'd be surprised if the RCS went up much at all, but someone with more expertise can jump in.

**cr9527** · 11 Feb 11,, 00:20

Originally Posted by Phoenix10

I'm no expert on RCS, but I would think that if those features are treated correctly (as I'm sure they are), they would not have much effect on RCS. The F-117 was stealthy because of all if its flat surfaces and lack of protrusions. Once we got higher computing power we were able to achieve the same thing (better actually) with continuous curvature and blended bodies. I'd be surprised if the RCS went up much at all, but someone with more expertise can jump in.

I remember Karlo Kopp bashing F-35's stealth capabilities, and one of his argument was that stubby bottom F-35 has. Granted he isn't exactly that reliable about F-35, I wonder if in this case, it holds some merit.

**Phoenix10** · 11 Feb 11,, 00:44

It's always possible, that's where we'd need an expert to chime in. While the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-22 (except maybe from the front), it is supposed to be stealthier than the B-2 and F-117 which would make me think that LM was able to address this.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II

I can't imagine that LM doesn't have the computing power to make the "bumps" in a way that considers the overall RCS requirement. In general, there has been talk about adding stealthy external fuel tanks and stealthy weapons pylons for various platforms. If this can be done, it would seem to me the presence of a "bump" or un-blended surface alone wouldn't mean a whole lot. It's all about how it is designed and treated.

UK changes JSF configuration for ASRAAM - Jane's Defence Systems News

AERO INDIA: VIDEO - Boeing reveals advanced Super Hornet options

**Stitch** · 11 Feb 11,, 00:47

Originally Posted by ArtyEngineer

I think the "Thought Control Software" meant you had to "Think" in russian

Well, all I know is Clint Eastwood did a lot of talking to the plane when he was trying to fly it and fight off the commie MiG-28.

**cr9527** · 11 Feb 11,, 00:48

Originally Posted by Phoenix10

It's always possible, that's where we'd need an expert to chime in. While the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-22 (except maybe from the front), it is supposed to be stealthier than the B-2 and F-117 which would make me think that LM was able to address this.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II

I can't imagine that LM doesn't have the computing power to make the "bumps" in a way that considers the overall RCS requirement. In general, there has been talk about adding stealthy external fuel tanks and stealthy weapons pylons for various platforms. If this can be done, it would seem to me the presence of a "bump" or un-blended surface alone wouldn't mean a whole lot. It's all about how it is designed and treated.

UK changes JSF configuration for ASRAAM - Jane's Defence Systems News

AERO INDIA: VIDEO - Boeing reveals advanced Super Hornet options

Will the stealthy external pods maintain F-35's stealth? Or is it more of a trade off?

**Phoenix10** · 11 Feb 11,, 00:55

Wait, the "Mig-28" was in Top Gun with Tom Cruise. Clint Eastwood talked to Firefox and I think he only battled the 2nd Firefox, no?

**Phoenix10** · 11 Feb 11,, 01:05

Originally Posted by cr9527

Will the stealthy external pods maintain F-35's stealth? Or is it more of a trade off?

For sure, everything on an aircraft is a trade off- especially regarding stealth. I never heard of anyone wanting to put stealthy external tanks on the F-35 (only other platforms). However, there was talk of external pylons for the F-35 (my second source). Of course, anytime you add mass that can possible reflect RF energy the RCS would go up if nothing is done to address that increase. The point I was going for is that the shape, material, coatings (and other things that I'm sure I don't know about) can be tweaked such that even a fairly large "bump" can still be stealthy. Take a cockpit for example, that is a huge protrusion coming out of the airframe yet it is still stealthy.

Granted, doing these types of treatments well is not easy. Much props to LM for being able to do all that they have done. Time will tell if China can match that...

**Stitch** · 11 Feb 11,, 01:10

Originally Posted by Phoenix10

Wait, the "Mig-28" was in Top Gun with Tom Cruise. Clint Eastwood talked to Firefox and I think he only battled the 2nd Firefox, no?

Yeah, you're right, I got my MiG's mixed-up; I should've said MiG-31.

**gunnut** · 11 Feb 11,, 01:40

Originally Posted by Phoenix10

For sure, everything on an aircraft is a trade off- especially regarding stealth. I never heard of anyone wanting to put stealthy external tanks on the F-35 (only other platforms). However, there was talk of external pylons for the F-35 (my second source). Of course, anytime you add mass that can possible reflect RF energy the RCS would go up if nothing is done to address that increase. The point I was going for is that the shape, material, coatings (and other things that I'm sure I don't know about) can be tweaked such that even a fairly large "bump" can still be stealthy. Take a cockpit for example, that is a huge protrusion coming out of the airframe yet it is still stealthy.

Granted, doing these types of treatments well is not easy. Much props to LM for being able to do all that they have done. Time will tell if China can match that...

There's also the plan to put a stealthy gun pod on the F-35B and C variant.

**ArtyEngineer** · 11 Feb 11,, 02:18

For all any of us knows these "Bumps" could be Critical features of the overall RCS Reduction strategy designed to interfere with back scatter from other components of the Airframe.

Regards

Arty