pmaitra
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
I must say, this payload is impressive. Excellent picture.GBU-12 drop and GAU-22 gun pod test:
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter 1.44
- Start date
gadeshi
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
This is not an actual payload (which is poor actually), but time-lapsed bombs trajectory
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
gadeshi
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
=======================================
http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Arti...pilot-ensemble-designed-to-keep-out-cb-agents
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --
After several tests over the past six months to contaminate and decontaminate an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with simulated chemical and biological agents, the 461st Flight Test Squadron has now moved forward to testing a suit ensemble designed to protect the pilot from those threats.
“Over a decade of planning, flight equipment and decontamination system design and build-up testing have led to this single flight test event,” said Darren Cole, 461st FLTS Human Systems Integration lead.
The chemical/biological ensemble consists of a special CB suit, a Joint Service Aircrew Mask used for the F-35, a pilot-mounted CB air filter, CB socks and gloves double taped at the wrists. The ensemble also features a filtered air blower that protects the pilot from CB contamination while walking to the jet. It provides both breathing air and demist air, which goes to the pilot’s mask and goggles. All components of the CB ensemble are in addition to the pilot’s sleeved flight jacket and G suit.
“Among the data we’re collecting is how much thermal stress is added to the pilot with the CB ensemble on and the impact the additional gear may have on flying the aircraft,” Cole said.
The ensemble also includes a communication device so the pilot can speak to people while wearing the ensemble with helmet and mask.
“It is a conversational communication unit, which is a box that integrates with the communication system so that when he speaks into his mask it lets people hear the pilot talk… it makes him sound like Darth Vader.”
For the CB ensemble tests, an F-35B is on loan from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona. Marine Corps test pilots Maj. Aaron Frey and Maj. Douglas Rosenstock from the 461st FLTS donned the CB ensemble for the first tests Jan. 6.
“The first pilot stepped to a clean jet in the CB ensemble and we contaminated it using a simulated agent. The engine run pulls in the simulant so we need to make sure the air is filtered before it gets to the pilot. First, the air goes through the [On-Board Oxygen Generation System] and then the pilot-mounted CB filter to remove any remaining contaminants. There is another filtered air supply blower that provides cooling and demist air to the pilot’s hood and goggles. We also used three air sampling devices to be sure all the air provided to the pilot was clean.”
The simulant sent into the jet’s air intakes is made of elements that have been researched and tested to be safe, but mimic the properties of the harmful agents.
After the ground test, a second pilot came out to simulate stepping to a “dirty jet.” He conducted an engine startup and then took off on a flight. Both pilots wore passive absorption devices on their bodies that the simulated contaminant would stick to if it made it through the CB ensemble. Data was taken from both pilots to see if anything was different from the separate startup scenarios.
“We purposely chose the Marine [short takeoff, vertical landing] version of the F-35 because the equipment is more complicated and basically has more nooks and crannies for the contaminant to hide in. This aircraft also has full-up mission systems. These tests will demonstrate that the U.S. and partner nations can fly, fight, and win in a CB threat environment and then quickly decontaminate the aircraft and return it to normal operation.”
Cole added that this has been the only time this suit has been flown in this configuration on the JSF and is the first ever simulated contaminated aircraft flown for this kind of data collection.
As with all F-35 tests conducted at Edwards, the data will be sent to the F-35 Joint Program Office so procedures can be documented and distributed to F-35 operators in the future so they know what to do while in a chemical or biological threat environment.
“We’ve established the procedures to step to the aircraft and hook into it and the order of powering on systems to get the filtered air supply to the pilot,” said Lauren Gilmore, 461st FLTS, flight test engineer. “We’ve developed procedures on who needs to help the pilot; how many people are needed to support the logistics trail; how many people are needed to help the pilot don the equipment and how many people will be needed in the Life Support unit. We’ve also noted how many Airmen may be needed to escort the pilot out to the aircraft and recover the aircraft. We helped a lot with the F-35 concept of operations.”
The 461st FLTS will have the F-35B from MCAS Yuma through the end of February for the tests.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Arti...pilot-ensemble-designed-to-keep-out-cb-agents
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --
After several tests over the past six months to contaminate and decontaminate an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with simulated chemical and biological agents, the 461st Flight Test Squadron has now moved forward to testing a suit ensemble designed to protect the pilot from those threats.
“Over a decade of planning, flight equipment and decontamination system design and build-up testing have led to this single flight test event,” said Darren Cole, 461st FLTS Human Systems Integration lead.
The chemical/biological ensemble consists of a special CB suit, a Joint Service Aircrew Mask used for the F-35, a pilot-mounted CB air filter, CB socks and gloves double taped at the wrists. The ensemble also features a filtered air blower that protects the pilot from CB contamination while walking to the jet. It provides both breathing air and demist air, which goes to the pilot’s mask and goggles. All components of the CB ensemble are in addition to the pilot’s sleeved flight jacket and G suit.
“Among the data we’re collecting is how much thermal stress is added to the pilot with the CB ensemble on and the impact the additional gear may have on flying the aircraft,” Cole said.
The ensemble also includes a communication device so the pilot can speak to people while wearing the ensemble with helmet and mask.
“It is a conversational communication unit, which is a box that integrates with the communication system so that when he speaks into his mask it lets people hear the pilot talk… it makes him sound like Darth Vader.”
For the CB ensemble tests, an F-35B is on loan from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona. Marine Corps test pilots Maj. Aaron Frey and Maj. Douglas Rosenstock from the 461st FLTS donned the CB ensemble for the first tests Jan. 6.
“The first pilot stepped to a clean jet in the CB ensemble and we contaminated it using a simulated agent. The engine run pulls in the simulant so we need to make sure the air is filtered before it gets to the pilot. First, the air goes through the [On-Board Oxygen Generation System] and then the pilot-mounted CB filter to remove any remaining contaminants. There is another filtered air supply blower that provides cooling and demist air to the pilot’s hood and goggles. We also used three air sampling devices to be sure all the air provided to the pilot was clean.”
The simulant sent into the jet’s air intakes is made of elements that have been researched and tested to be safe, but mimic the properties of the harmful agents.
After the ground test, a second pilot came out to simulate stepping to a “dirty jet.” He conducted an engine startup and then took off on a flight. Both pilots wore passive absorption devices on their bodies that the simulated contaminant would stick to if it made it through the CB ensemble. Data was taken from both pilots to see if anything was different from the separate startup scenarios.
“We purposely chose the Marine [short takeoff, vertical landing] version of the F-35 because the equipment is more complicated and basically has more nooks and crannies for the contaminant to hide in. This aircraft also has full-up mission systems. These tests will demonstrate that the U.S. and partner nations can fly, fight, and win in a CB threat environment and then quickly decontaminate the aircraft and return it to normal operation.”
Cole added that this has been the only time this suit has been flown in this configuration on the JSF and is the first ever simulated contaminated aircraft flown for this kind of data collection.
As with all F-35 tests conducted at Edwards, the data will be sent to the F-35 Joint Program Office so procedures can be documented and distributed to F-35 operators in the future so they know what to do while in a chemical or biological threat environment.
“We’ve established the procedures to step to the aircraft and hook into it and the order of powering on systems to get the filtered air supply to the pilot,” said Lauren Gilmore, 461st FLTS, flight test engineer. “We’ve developed procedures on who needs to help the pilot; how many people are needed to support the logistics trail; how many people are needed to help the pilot don the equipment and how many people will be needed in the Life Support unit. We’ve also noted how many Airmen may be needed to escort the pilot out to the aircraft and recover the aircraft. We helped a lot with the F-35 concept of operations.”
The 461st FLTS will have the F-35B from MCAS Yuma through the end of February for the tests.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
IRST versus F35
Most discussions about value of IRST against stealth focus on airframe being heated due to air friction. This, however, is wrong for a very simple reason: any time a gas is compressed, it heats. And compression of gasses in front of moving object is a normal, unavoidable occurence – only difference is scale of compression, which depends on object’s speed.
While aircraft do heat up less in rarer atmosphere, less atmosphere also means that more IR radiation – especially of longwave variety – reaches the infrared sensor. Further, at high altitudes – where stealth aircraft are required to operate – temperatures range from -30 to -50 degrees Celzius. At the same time, fighter supercruising at Mach 1,7 creates shock cone with temperature of 87 degrees Celzius. While PIRATE IRST can detect subsonic fighters from 90 km from front and 145 km from rear according to (somewhat outdated) publicly avaliable information, this range is 10% greater against supercruising fighter. At the same time, OLS-35 can detect subsonic fighter from 50 km from front and 90 km from rear. PIRATE’s own range is already comparable to that of fighter radars against 1m2 targets. (Note: Data used for both PIRATE and OLS-35 dates from 2008; it is possible that both have been improved in the mean time).
Parts of aircraft’s exhaust plume are also visible from front, which should present no problem for modern IRSTs that are capable of detecting AAM release due to missile’s nose cone heating.
This means that stealth aircraft has no escape – if it attempts to increase effective range of its missiles, it has to increase speed – but this increases IR signature and allows it to be detected from larger distance. If it attempts to avoid detection, it has to reduce speed, which means that it has to come closer to IRST-equipped fighter.
QWIP IRST such as PIRATE or OSF has some very useful advantages over “legacy” IRST. Aside from longer range, they can be tuned for sensitivity in certain IR band. While normal IRST operates in microwave to longwave IR bands, QWIP IRST can operate in very longwave bands, allowing for easy detection of objects that are only slightly hotter than the background, with difference being in single digit degrees of Cenzius. It can also use several bands in paralel, getting “best of the both worlds”.
USAF is obviously concerned about it but unlike PAK FA, F-35s IRST is optimised for air-to-ground missions, and is thus operating in appropriate wavelengths, reducing its range against aerial targets.
While F-22 was designed to operate at high altitudes, as high as 15-20 kilometers, clouds only go up to 14 kilometers in some cases, with majority being below 4 500 meters – and even that only in tropics. All other stealth air superiority aircraft are similarly expected to operate at high altitudes.
Most discussions about value of IRST against stealth focus on airframe being heated due to air friction. This, however, is wrong for a very simple reason: any time a gas is compressed, it heats. And compression of gasses in front of moving object is a normal, unavoidable occurence – only difference is scale of compression, which depends on object’s speed.
While aircraft do heat up less in rarer atmosphere, less atmosphere also means that more IR radiation – especially of longwave variety – reaches the infrared sensor. Further, at high altitudes – where stealth aircraft are required to operate – temperatures range from -30 to -50 degrees Celzius. At the same time, fighter supercruising at Mach 1,7 creates shock cone with temperature of 87 degrees Celzius. While PIRATE IRST can detect subsonic fighters from 90 km from front and 145 km from rear according to (somewhat outdated) publicly avaliable information, this range is 10% greater against supercruising fighter. At the same time, OLS-35 can detect subsonic fighter from 50 km from front and 90 km from rear. PIRATE’s own range is already comparable to that of fighter radars against 1m2 targets. (Note: Data used for both PIRATE and OLS-35 dates from 2008; it is possible that both have been improved in the mean time).
Parts of aircraft’s exhaust plume are also visible from front, which should present no problem for modern IRSTs that are capable of detecting AAM release due to missile’s nose cone heating.
This means that stealth aircraft has no escape – if it attempts to increase effective range of its missiles, it has to increase speed – but this increases IR signature and allows it to be detected from larger distance. If it attempts to avoid detection, it has to reduce speed, which means that it has to come closer to IRST-equipped fighter.
QWIP IRST such as PIRATE or OSF has some very useful advantages over “legacy” IRST. Aside from longer range, they can be tuned for sensitivity in certain IR band. While normal IRST operates in microwave to longwave IR bands, QWIP IRST can operate in very longwave bands, allowing for easy detection of objects that are only slightly hotter than the background, with difference being in single digit degrees of Cenzius. It can also use several bands in paralel, getting “best of the both worlds”.
USAF is obviously concerned about it but unlike PAK FA, F-35s IRST is optimised for air-to-ground missions, and is thus operating in appropriate wavelengths, reducing its range against aerial targets.
While F-22 was designed to operate at high altitudes, as high as 15-20 kilometers, clouds only go up to 14 kilometers in some cases, with majority being below 4 500 meters – and even that only in tropics. All other stealth air superiority aircraft are similarly expected to operate at high altitudes.
Last edited:
StealthFlanker
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 879
- Likes
- 1,213
Sound like picard's BS. Pirate can detect F-22 from around 50 km away according to German pilot, no information about whether it is rear or front aspect
https://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/
Another product of Picard
There is no mentioned of subsonic fighter even on manufacturer production card
IRST need LRF for range-velocity measurement, LRF has very short range around 20-30 km in perfect weather.
The 64th F-16C aggressor squadron frequently carry IRST to train with stealth aircraft, yet they keep getting demolished
There is no evidence that OSF has QWIP technology, and QWIP operating wavelength isn't really that far off either, nor does it has wider bandwidth than HgCdTe
Furthermore, F-35 IR sensors are dual band
Nevertheless, even mid-wave is enough
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
All depend of your source, and what this source is authorised to say... A pilot can't say all...
It's the same about, for exemple, Meteor range. MBDA say " > 100km ". Some from test range say " more than 150km".
A french engineer at DGA said after the first trials of Meteor were so impressive that the tactics had to be changed a lot. Don't ask me a source. It's rumored from mouth to ear...
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
F35 in BVR combat
Stealth aircraft are built under assumption that BVR radar-based combat trumps WVR combat.
However, that assumption is unproven; neither AMRAAM or other BVR missiles were ever used beyond distance of 40-50 kilometers. In case of AMRAAM, usage was against aircraft with no radar, no IRST, no radar warners, no ECM, with badly trained pilots that were in most cases unaware they were under attack (and were not maneuvering as a consequence). Yet even in such perfect conditions, AMRAAM achieved 6 kills in 13 BVR launches, or Pk of 0,46.
During Desert Storm, in conditions identical to above, USAF F-15s launched 12 Sidewinders for 8 kills, for Pk of 0,67. For same F-15s, AIM-7 Sparrow achieved 23 kills in 67 shots, for Pk of 0,34.
Thus we have to take a look back at Vietnam. Why Vietnam? Simply because it was the last time US have fought somewhat competent opponent in the air. Even experience with IR missile suggests that Pk in combat against competent opponent will be far lower than above: AIM-9B achieved Pk of 0,65 in tests, which fell to 0,15 in Vietnam, to be improved to 0,19 with AIM-9D and J, whereas G model does not offer large enough sample for drawing conclusions. Yet even this was better than Pk for BVR missiles. While majority of AIM-7 shots were taken within visual range, during 1971-1973 in Vietnam, 28 BVR shots were made, resulting in 2 kills, one of which was a fratricide against an F-4 – a Pk of 0,071, as opposed to predicted Pk of 0,9 or more. During entire war, guns had Pk of 0,28.
In fact, summary by Burton of kills made during Cold War has found that, out of 407 missile kills he studied, 73 were made by Sparrows in 632 firings, a kill rate of 11%. Sidewinder achieved 308 kills in around 1 000 firings. Out of all radar-guided missile kills, only four were made at BVR – two already described shots in Vietnam that were carefully staged outside of combat, and two similarly staged shots by Israeli air force. His summary of these 407 shots concluded that most targets were unaware and fired from the rear, and that there were almost no head-on BVR shots due to high closing rates. Only way to positively identify the target was by the eye.
When we take a look at the data above, a clear pattern begins to emerge: while Pk against incompetent opponent is significantly higher than against competent one, by a factor of almost five, relative weapons’ effectiveness remains unchanged: IR missiles achieve half the Pk of gun, and radar-guided missiles achieve half the IR missile’s Pk. Further, visual identification of target is still important, and is likely to remain so. In fact, during First Gulf War, majority of US casualties were due to the friendly fire, while in 1973 war Israeli pilots considered an on-board radar “essentially useless”, with Sparrow achieving one or no kills in that war.
Time has also shown that maximum simplicity weapons and countermeasures, such as guns and flares/chaff, are usually most effective. This is unlikely to change.
Stealth aircraft are built under assumption that BVR radar-based combat trumps WVR combat.
However, that assumption is unproven; neither AMRAAM or other BVR missiles were ever used beyond distance of 40-50 kilometers. In case of AMRAAM, usage was against aircraft with no radar, no IRST, no radar warners, no ECM, with badly trained pilots that were in most cases unaware they were under attack (and were not maneuvering as a consequence). Yet even in such perfect conditions, AMRAAM achieved 6 kills in 13 BVR launches, or Pk of 0,46.
During Desert Storm, in conditions identical to above, USAF F-15s launched 12 Sidewinders for 8 kills, for Pk of 0,67. For same F-15s, AIM-7 Sparrow achieved 23 kills in 67 shots, for Pk of 0,34.
Thus we have to take a look back at Vietnam. Why Vietnam? Simply because it was the last time US have fought somewhat competent opponent in the air. Even experience with IR missile suggests that Pk in combat against competent opponent will be far lower than above: AIM-9B achieved Pk of 0,65 in tests, which fell to 0,15 in Vietnam, to be improved to 0,19 with AIM-9D and J, whereas G model does not offer large enough sample for drawing conclusions. Yet even this was better than Pk for BVR missiles. While majority of AIM-7 shots were taken within visual range, during 1971-1973 in Vietnam, 28 BVR shots were made, resulting in 2 kills, one of which was a fratricide against an F-4 – a Pk of 0,071, as opposed to predicted Pk of 0,9 or more. During entire war, guns had Pk of 0,28.
In fact, summary by Burton of kills made during Cold War has found that, out of 407 missile kills he studied, 73 were made by Sparrows in 632 firings, a kill rate of 11%. Sidewinder achieved 308 kills in around 1 000 firings. Out of all radar-guided missile kills, only four were made at BVR – two already described shots in Vietnam that were carefully staged outside of combat, and two similarly staged shots by Israeli air force. His summary of these 407 shots concluded that most targets were unaware and fired from the rear, and that there were almost no head-on BVR shots due to high closing rates. Only way to positively identify the target was by the eye.
When we take a look at the data above, a clear pattern begins to emerge: while Pk against incompetent opponent is significantly higher than against competent one, by a factor of almost five, relative weapons’ effectiveness remains unchanged: IR missiles achieve half the Pk of gun, and radar-guided missiles achieve half the IR missile’s Pk. Further, visual identification of target is still important, and is likely to remain so. In fact, during First Gulf War, majority of US casualties were due to the friendly fire, while in 1973 war Israeli pilots considered an on-board radar “essentially useless”, with Sparrow achieving one or no kills in that war.
Time has also shown that maximum simplicity weapons and countermeasures, such as guns and flares/chaff, are usually most effective. This is unlikely to change.
StealthFlanker
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 879
- Likes
- 1,213
Too bad when the source of your number is defensiveissue where there are more dozens numbers all fabricated by Picard
StealthFlanker
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 879
- Likes
- 1,213
People repeat this excuse again and again without even looking in the detail
For example : Yugoslavia has 14 MiG-29Bs and 2 MiG-29UBs, Mig-29UB are trainer without radar but still has IRST sensor. But the avionic of Mig-29 9.12B include N-019EB radar, OEPrNK-29E2 IRST and ,L006LM/101 RWR
If you can't be asked to look up the equipment name ,there are still plenty photo all over the internet showing Iraq and Yugoslavia Mig-29 with IRST
Before you say they have IRST but no radar, let me ask this if their Mig-29 don't have radar then why the hell does it carry R-27? that is not R-27T either
Another aircraft that Iraq used is the Mig-25PSD which carry a massive N-005 Saphir-25 radar that can detect target even in ground clutter , some sample has IRST as well
Nevermind that there are a bunch of Mirage F1E got shoot down by AIM-54 and AIM-7 even though Mirage F1 equipped with Cyrano IVM radar and SHERLOC or BF RWR
Last edited:
StealthFlanker
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 879
- Likes
- 1,213
Talking about kill ratio, in Nam war, the PK of SA-75 has PK around 3% overall and less than 1% most of the time, most kill are from AA cannon. Feel free to ask any pilots what they fear more S-300/400 complex or 2K22 Tunguska
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
No modern air force will fly low where a Tungunska or equivalent system are. It's why stand off weapons were developped !
The real fear remain modern SAM systems. How really are they effective against modern fighters in a real war ambiance.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
T
But first (and specially export one) Mig29 IRST are poorly effective (low range), and Mirage F1 radar is weak against a F15/F18 radar...
Even 1st gen Mirage 2000 RDM radar was weak. Mirage 2000 RDI was better, and the first real high perf air air french radar was RDY of Mirage 2000-5 and -9
All these planes were export ones (with reduced perf), with poorly trained pilots, flying with old area soviet tactics (guided from ground radars), fired by the back, surrounded by highly electronic counter measures, without AWACS when the opponent had it...
You're right on IRST and radar,People repeat this excuse again and again without even looking in the detail
For example : Yugoslavia has 14 MiG-29Bs and 2 MiG-29UBs, Mig-29UB are trainer without radar but still has IRST sensor. But the avionic of Mig-29 9.12B include N-019EB radar, OEPrNK-29E2 IRST and ,L006LM/101 RWR
If you can't be asked to look up the equipment name ,there are still plenty photo all over the internet showing Iraq and Yugoslavia Mig-29 with IRST
Before you say they have IRST but no radar, let me ask this if their Mig-29 don't have radar then why the hell does it carry R-27? that is not R-27T either
Another aircraft that Iraq used is the Mig-25PSD which carry a massive N-005 Saphir-25 radar that can detect target even in ground clutter , some sample has IRST as well
Nevermind that there are a bunch of Mirage F1E got shoot down by AIM-54 and AIM-7 even though Mirage F1 equipped with Cyrano IVM radar and SHERLOC or BF RWR
But first (and specially export one) Mig29 IRST are poorly effective (low range), and Mirage F1 radar is weak against a F15/F18 radar...
Even 1st gen Mirage 2000 RDM radar was weak. Mirage 2000 RDI was better, and the first real high perf air air french radar was RDY of Mirage 2000-5 and -9
All these planes were export ones (with reduced perf), with poorly trained pilots, flying with old area soviet tactics (guided from ground radars), fired by the back, surrounded by highly electronic counter measures, without AWACS when the opponent had it...
StealthFlanker
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 879
- Likes
- 1,213
You missed the point, if you judge the effectiveness of weapons system based on PK alone without consider various related factors then you could easily get the wrong conclusion.
For example: the PK of anti air cannon is higher than SAM in Vietnam war, but SAM themselves force aircraft to fly low, making them a lot more vulnerable to cannons. Furthermore, the overall PK of missiles are calculated by taking the number of target hit divided by the number of missiles used but it does not take into account the fact that pilots will double or triple launch their missiles to achieve a higher chance of hitting the target. If pilots launch 3 missiles against a single target and all 3 missiles hit the target or the first destroy target before the other 2 have a chance to, you will still end up with PK of around 33%. On the other hand, PK of cannon are calculated by taking the number of targets destroyed divided by the number of dogfight engagement. But in a dogfight engagement, it is likely that pilots will have to shot several times (as in different burst) before he destroyed the target. However, even if he has to shot his cannon five times before target get hit and destroyed, the PK of that engagement would still be 100%. Then of course, it doesn't take into account that aircraft trying to dodge missiles will lose altitude and speed and therefore easier to shot down
Having weak radar and IRST is not the same as not having one
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2014
- Messages
- 362
- Likes
- 397
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic.html
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec_26.html
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html
Awesome blog about F 35 raw maneuverability with graphs and stats.
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec_26.html
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html
Awesome blog about F 35 raw maneuverability with graphs and stats.
gadeshi
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
F-35B/C dorsal cannon container fire test:
Video:
http://cf.c.ooyala.com/tyNnc3YjE6g0UVZ7sygBB9RtKRbSD_Yu/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOjIwbTowODE7WK?_=akjb96
Video:
http://cf.c.ooyala.com/tyNnc3YjE6g0UVZ7sygBB9RtKRbSD_Yu/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOjIwbTowODE7WK?_=akjb96
