It was for the FIDAE air show and on its way there it was refueled by a KC-135 of the Chilean Air Force and flew over Santiago accompanied by F-16s. This, along with the fact that the Chilean government is already looking for replacements for the F-5 and Peru's purchase of F-16 Block 16s, has fueled this speculation.
This is the german FCAS.... with so many content from Airbus....
No, that's the Jagdbomber of the near future. The fifth generation stealth fighter is only supplementing a national sixth generation design. This fleet make-up can also be seen in the UK and Italy, which also boast the F-35 on top of developing an indigenous next generation fighter.
This whole deal has become so tiresome over the years that the current consensus -- from PhDs to observers -- is basically: "If it works out, great. If not, so be it (gelirse Ekim'e, gelmezse s*kime)".
This is part of the push to replace Honeywell's PTMS with Collins Aerospace's.
Not happening
That power requirement was for the entire Block 4 F-35 with AN/APG-85's systems, rather than just the radar. The max given for the AN/APG-85 alone was 62kW of cooling being required.
Were there not stories about radar operators accidentally killing birds during ground tests?Given the power rating of the AN/APG-85 I wonder if the ground-crew could use it to microwave hotdogs?
So roast chicken then?
So nothing essential. just some crumbs.
It is the sole proven usage of this radar so farGiven the power rating of the AN/APG-85 I wonder if the ground-crew could use it to microwave hotdogs
I wouldn't say that manufacturing the center fuselage for a stealth strike fighter is "just some crumbs". It's a major participation in the supply line of the type and provides valuable experience in the construction of low observable aircraft.
What is important is not to built, accordind to drawings not made by you, so without the stealth know how.
The only country more qualified in that realm within Europe is the UK. BAE has a comfortable lead in that regard, while the likes of Airbus and Rheinmetall have valuable experience in that realm. Leaving TAI out for a moment.
any one that can produce a central frame of a modern jet (ie with composite) can produce a stealth one ! you just have to follow the right shapes studied to be stealth.
It's certainly not as easy as you portray it, otherwise it would be much more common. And while stealth aircraft have been somewhat democratized, in that more and more countries have been able to develop and field them, the design and construction is only one portion. Operation and maintenance is another, something USAF personelle repeatedly pointed out, similarly to how USAF, PLAAF and VKS sources state that the deployment of low observable aircraft required rethinking their doctrine and how they approach their own operations.
I generally agree with you on its advantages (of which there are indeed many - including "seamless" interoperability with other F-35 operators and NATO nuclear sharing), but there are also huge downsides to operating the F-35 -- namely its outrageous lifetime costs and poor readiness rates. What good is a stealth fighter if I can't get it in the air when I actually need it?
To tie this into your later comment about the advantages of experiencing such an ecosystem: without Turkish military and industrial participation in the JSF as a prominent Tier 3 partner until 2018 (and industrially until 20
You didn't understood me.
because we underestimated the thoughtlessness of your comment. there are more than dozen layers of stealth treatment of different materials stacking on top of each other. and they are not unison throughout the aircraft. Because different curves, bumps. panels, cavities interact differently with radar waves, and different frequencies in turn interact differently against these surfaces as well. calculation of which stealth technique, be it radar absorbent materials, radar absorbent structures, to applied local to each part of the aircraft become exponentially complex when so many different factors interact with each other.
Airbus and German industry in general has several studies concerning low observable aviation under their belt, I don't think I have to mention that Germany was right there behind the US during the cold war when it comes to such studies. We never had Tacit Blue or Have Blue, as flyable demonstrators. But we had Lampyridae and TDEFS, valuable studies nonetheless. And these days there are studies like LOUT, DLR FFD, Airbus' Wingman studies as well as the work that went into the optimization and improvement of existing platforms. Now things like participation in the wider JSF framework, Airbus having a relation with Kratos concerning the XQ-58 or General Atomics Aerotec Systems GmbHs involvement in trying to make the FQ-42 more suitable for European customers, add further expertise to the wider German aerospace sector. It's a decent balance of past, current and future development studies on an indigenous basis while gaining industrial expertise through cooperation with American partners. And who better to learn from than the Americans in that regard?
Problem is, these things tend to matter significantly only when they're reaching operational status. Or, at least a prototype, which worked in reality (even if on artisanship and individual treatment).
I wouldn't say so. On this forum alone you can find various advanced studies that never had an associated demonstrator produced but still hold significant value on their own. One of the more recently relevant examples being the Northrop DP-21 aka the Christmas Tree Fighter. NATF-23 is another study/proposal that never left the drawing board yet had substantial relevance for Northrop Grumman as a company. The BAE Replica was also not a flying prototype, yet BAE deemed it crucial.
