dark light

quadbike

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 3,473 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Should Australia had invested in India's AMCA? #2310074
    quadbike
    Participant

    So far people have been concentrating on India’s percieved inability with respect to delivering the AMCA on time.

    From the Indian view poin what does Australia bring to the table ? Do they have a good history of designing fighters, like Sweden for example, No. Hell even South Africa/Brazil can offer more !

    So what they can give is money, which is not the problem with AMCA, India should partner with Sweden or some other European country with experience in designing and delivering fighters not with countries from Asia/Asia-Pacific who while having money and need for a fifth-gen, only posess an aviation industry comparable and in many ways inferior to that of India.

    Only Japan stands out.

    in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2310077
    quadbike
    Participant

    Personally, I would be disappointed if they go for flat nozzles because it would mean only 2D TVC….the T-50 maneuverability will be one of it’s main strengths.

    Maneuvarability won’t matter for much in future air combat. Its a nice addition the TVC like climate control in a car. Better all aspect stealth including rear, is the turbocharger !

    in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2310081
    quadbike
    Participant

    Its cheap and light weight, if it has enough power for the radar + EW then a few dedicated EW tejas won’t be that bad.

    in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2310289
    quadbike
    Participant

    1. May be his employer changed ? (From janes to Aviation Week)

    2. The current employer gets a lot of funding from a party who wants F 35 to get negative press.

    Just speculation

    in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2310418
    quadbike
    Participant

    Actually if it don’t look like the first picture. I would be rather disappointed.

    in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2310492
    quadbike
    Participant

    spud, there’s a slight difference in having an opinion and being paid to have one… for as long as sweetman isn’t paid by, say, boeing, to criticise the f-35, and expresses his own opinion, that opinion can be taken into consideration, especially if one takes into account his, decades long, experience on the subject.

    to make it clear: I won’t believe any praise from an LM guy on the F-35, and I won’t believe any criticism from a boeing guy on the F-35, but I will take into consideration what someone independant from both sides may think, be it positive or negative

    In the CBS documentary I think called the battle of the X planes (posted here by some user a while back), Sweetman actually supported the X 35 over the X 32, praising its design ? Why is he so against it now ?

    :confused:

    in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2310494
    quadbike
    Participant

    Perhaps you wish to tell us why his hatred and bias? Why? (i’m interested actually)

    Regardless, still i think B.Sweetman has quite some solid background behind him, afterall he wrote dozens of aviation themed books for decades ( which probably can’t be said of that Thompson guy, or some F-35 fanboys who enjoy bashing him for daring to criticise their bestest and goodest fighter-jet)

    Also, who pays Sweetman? (to be negativitistic and biased against F-35, as sugested above)

    To be fair Sweetman was an F 35 supporter to begin with his early articles and books testify to this fact, as does his expert opinion on documentaries on the JSF, some how somewhere along the line hes had a U turn. Whether its because of his legitimate concerns or because of his vested interests remains to be seen.

    in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2310496
    quadbike
    Participant

    Wish it was fully loaded as well 🙂

    in reply to: MMRCA for Malaysia #2311328
    quadbike
    Participant

    I know what I’d go for and I don’t buy into this “generation” sh!te.

    Ok People who don’t buy into generation ****.

    1. EFLightning, many Euro fans & certain defense journos/editors.

    People who buy into generation ****.

    1. LM, Boeing. US government and allied militaries.

    2. Russians.

    3. Chinese who call it fourth generation but acknowledges its a gneration leap.

    4.Indians, Japanese, Koreans who all consider their stealthy designs to be next generation.

    Not even an argument really..

    As for multirole the F 35 was always int to be multirole, the sheer number of types its going to replace is a testament to that.

    in reply to: MMRCA for Malaysia #2311471
    quadbike
    Participant

    Same for Rafale & Gripen then?…

    Missiles aren’t the only thing(s) that would be an advantage, airframe, superior supersonic performance, AESA fitted to a Repositioner & other electronics and gadets such as TRDs’ would play their part too. And anyway, the Typhoon won’t be operating with AMRAAM for long now anyway so it hardly matters.

    Yes Rafale & Gripen & Every other fourth generation fighter. They may be slightly superior but nothing like an F-22/F-35/T-50/J-20.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2311519
    quadbike
    Participant

    It may not be an exact copy but its clearly evident that the J 20 is a stealthised MIG 1.44. That don’t mean the Chinese stole anything, prolly took the idea and developed it further.

    in reply to: MMRCA for Malaysia #2311559
    quadbike
    Participant

    Whatever advantage the typhoon has over latest gen Flanker/Eagle is minimal, it is not a ‘generational gap’. Most of the advantage lies with the missile, if both have the AMRAAM I won’t be surprised if the SE came out tops.

    in reply to: Should Australia had invested in India's AMCA? #2311560
    quadbike
    Participant

    The current hundreds of millions of Indians in poverty is Britain’s fault too I presume?

    Indeed its roots can be traced to the British period. From the misgovernence and taxation in Bengal by the company to the great famine during the second world war for which Churchill is responsible, it claimed the lives of millions of Indians sort of a mini genocide.

    The free Indian state was such a mess when the British left and compared to other countires with similar problems during the time of Independence India has done rather well.

    in reply to: Should Australia had invested in India's AMCA? #2311956
    quadbike
    Participant

    Agreed! Good relations now doesn’t mean things won’t change in the future, especially considering India and China will become ever more determined to obtain resources, and Australia has lots of natural resources.

    Aussies can play India and china agaisnt each other and reap rewards :diablo:

    in reply to: Indian Navy – News & Discussion – IV #2033823
    quadbike
    Participant

    You are only talking about aviation. That is not the whole picture to say the least. Even in aviation, when SU-27 and MiG-29 came out, they improved upon the aerodynamic configurations used up till then. Yes, there was an avionics lag no doubt. But avionics are not the whole picture, and neither is fighter aircraft.

    Please, don’t get into the communism operational dogma talk, it is fantasy for the most part. CGI doctrine is not an extension of communist ideology, sorry. It is a deliberate choice based on how warfare would be realistically fought, at least, the Soviet interpretation of this. The sort of nonsense written about say PVO pilots being drones by the West back in the Cold War was just ignorance. I don’t want to get into an F-16/MiG-29 discussion, but on the subject, what would an F-16 even have done against a MiG-29 during a Cold War encounter? It didn’t even have BVR armament, and up close, no HMS and R-73. F-16s would have been used as part of an AWACS/larger BVR armed fighter network….sounds like the exact same thing CGI would have done for the MiG-29.

    Russia is cutting its assets not because it is moving to some “WEstern” ideal, but because it is the economi reality of the post Cold War world. For their time, the Su-27, the MiG-31, etc etc, were all highly capable platforms.

    1. The lag in avionics and cockpit ergonomics meant that these fighters despite their superior aerodynamics were at times at a disadvantage against western fighters because of this. WRT PAF we are talking about early block F 16s with no BVR capability the same entered Allied air service years before the MIG 29.

    2. The Soviet concept was flawed and that is why newer Russian platforms are adopting western approach in cockpit design ergonomics, sensors etc. As Russia became a democracy it began to care about the lives of its soldiers rather than during soviet times where he was just another expendable commodity. And please I have studied History long enough to believe in your alternate theories.

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 3,473 total)