mattI think a big difference is that the F-22 is a production plane, while the two others are prototypes, cant still understand the black paint job, are they planning to fly the prototype at night time?
The canopy does look exactly similar, like built in the same production line similar….
Black paint is for high visibility against a blue sky. Check put telemetry laden typhoon photos from around 2001
mattSomething wrong about iaf getting fighters the uae and paf has flown!
mattYes, the civil aviation indsutry looks indeed healthy. And if you look at the engine industry, it is obvious that the basic capbaility to built a combat aircraft will remain in Europe, what Europe lacks is the political will to pick one project and go ahead with it.
agreed so when, how and what is it going to be?
I do not believe AI will get advance enough to allow UCAV’s to do Air to air or air to ground work until atleast 7th gen aircraft. So for me the next aircraft will be manned but what will it be?
Will the EU simplify and diversify so that it has a strike, intercept etc aircraft? or will it try and do a all in one ? Will it be multi seat or single, will it have super long range? Will it be adapted with new efficient turbofans similar to civil engines using green fuels? Will it have solar panels to power equipment in flight?
mattOk, with that one I agree, the three version F-35 seems to be even more over engineered than the F-22 even if the F-35 is not still out.;)
Fair point on the F-35 not being in service, read a really good case study or blog cant remember which one where it went through history citing countries that had developed a way of conducting war. Anyway apart from the sections on how the leaders in new methods loose their ways, it also went onto speak about the current US facination of trying to get one thing to do lots and lots of jobs instead of going for individual systems.
Although some times i did not agree with the article I had to agree that trying to make one piece of equipment be the jack of all trade and master of non took longer cost more was more risky and meant that development or evolution was also slow. One of the things they pointed out was the UAV development in the US and I think for that reason and the fact that it has almost been cancelled and resurected i would have to nominate the US J-UCAV.
Many countries would be happy to field a stealthy UAV but the US are going more copmlex with swarm technology etc, one could argue to put on basic electronics on the X-47 get it into production and get it flying. Then add all the AI to do complex air to air fighting etc..
mattSo yes with JVs and ToTs India will get there one day but to say the LCA is anywhere near the Gripen now is absolute jingoism.
Not sure about reference to JF-17 but agreed with the above point, the LCA can only be thought of as a sucessfull research project. not a sucessfull real world product at this moment in time.
matt1. Gripen NG will have a much better kinematic performance than F-16; due to much lower weight but also less drag (in a non-clean config).
2. If you insist on comparing the LCAs to the “right version” of Gripen then you need to compare the LCA mk1 to Gripen A/B, and LCA mk2 to Gripen C/D… and LCA mk3 (if it ever gets built) to Gripen NG…. 😉
If you want to compare the current LCA to the “right version” of gripen would you now have to compare it to that of the gripen pre IOC?
mattI think the F-35 is over engineered it is trying to replace too many aircraft, more than the F-22 which is purely about air dominance the F-35 is trying to be a replacement of the F-14, Harrier, F-16 and A-10 for the US and Jaguar, Tornado etc for the european side. For Israel and Japan who will not get the F-22 it will be replacing the F-15’s as well.
No other fits the “too many eggs” in one basket as much as the F-35.
mattConsidering Civil aviation projects in Europe are going to be ongoing and that the companies that make parts for the Civil side will also help (bid for) military project surely the real question is not about the future of the European fighter industry but about when the next generation european fighter will be, what it will look like not only in terms of aircraft design but who and how many will participate in it.
mattActual production of most bio-fuels uses nearly as much energy as it produces… while fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) produce far more energy than is used in collecting, transporting, and preparing them for use.
Algae based biofuels are mentioned. Make more sense as well since that won’t compete with food production.
mattHave to wonder what the French will do after Rafael gets past its use by date.
mattB-2 although costly I don’t think is over engineered. It was designed to strike deep into ussr.
mattIts a slightly more succesfull version of the old F-18 compared to what the F-2 turned out to be of the F-16.
Its on only recently with the Ultra Hornet that the USN has been seeing the capability that it should have got years ago. Even then this capability is nothing other than an avionics upgrade the idiosyncrasies of the F/A-18 E/F aerodynamic performance are still in existance. Couple this with the apparently earlier than expected occurances of cracks in the F/A-18 airframe (earlier than originally thought) put a question mark on the F/A-18’s usefullness in a threat environment where it has to face 200+ of the worlds most agile aircraft.
Our legacy fighter fleets have worn out faster than anticipated and are nearing the end of their service lives. This past March, Navy Times reported that Naval Air Systems Command was forced to ground 104 Navy and Marine F/A-18 Hornets. Inspectors discovered that the airframes were developing cracks much sooner than had been anticipated.
USNI.ORG http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-09/mind-gap
If it is true that the Naval F/A-18s are caped at low g’s to preserve life for carrier operations and that this “limiter” could be switched off how can the IAF be sure that the life of the aircraft will not be shortened significantly, keeping into consideration that cracks that are showing up on the “standard” and “electronically limited” naval F/A-18’s.
What i find really ironic in all this is that the USNI is publishing reports where it says that the legacy fighters will not be a match for China’s 5th gen fleet of aircraft and that the current fleet of Su-27 derivatives is some where around 626 aircraft “sold or ordered” (i am not sure if they account for the J-11 in all these calcs).. and yet those same legacy fighters are being marketed in India which has a more direct issue… If India can afford 200 or so Pak-Fa’s or FGFA’s imagine what PLAAF will be fielding in 2018-2030 time period! Which is around the same time as the F/A-18s would be flying in IAF colours.
You can imagine a better option for the IAF is to purchase a low cost aircraft now to keep squandron strength and furnish the remainder of the money on a split of FGFA and AMCA where the FGFA gets 80% of the savings and AMCA get the remaining 20%.
mattThe cracking that allows moisture intrusion is caused by flexing of manufacturing joints and seams, not CTE.
Martinez has posted the rca summary above, my example was not that cte was the issue but that it does not make sence to pay over the odds for Ti panels when Ali ones are good enough.
mattSome of what India is angling for (and of course Russia would negotiate hard, every percentage point towards Indian industry is a percentage point taken from Russias highly vertically integrated aerospace complex) is mentioned in the article above. But other areas where India could contribute are composite structures & it could also pick up workpackages around CAD & software that private industry could execute. I do hope though that HAL keeps its eye on the ball and looks towards value added work and not merely workshare by value. India will pick up a lot in terms of design processes and manufacturing techniques, but HAL should really aim for more than that.
India can do some composites work but can’ really take the lead. Quest / TATA could be used to do the mundane number crunching.
After lca and alh India should not take the lead as it does not have as much experience.
mattAs a metal, Titanium is very resillant against corrosion but quite expensive, and of course toppled with RAM coating who knows what crazy reaction emerge..
Which bring out my first question, why didn’t LM use Titanium instead of Aluminium on those skin panels?Russia is still using Titanium on their aircraft, since they have the resources.
But since the F-22 is such a expensive aircraft in the first place i don’t see the cost of titanium beeing any problem here?
How big and how many panels like that is present on the F-22?
Unless the surface is going to see high temps where cte could cause problems does not make sence to go for the expense of Ti. Aluminium is good enough.
Sign In
