EELightning“RAF chief predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power”.
Didn’t read anything in that article that mentioned “Royal Naval Air Power”. Missed another something again, have I?
EELightningAs Russia hasn’t had the resources and has loss a considerable amount design talent after the break-up of the former USSR.
Hasn’t had the resources, maybe. Not enough budget, yes. Loss of a considerable amount of Design Talent after the break-up of the former USSR, I think not. The Russians have always had talent for design, especially when it comes to military aviation as well as in other areas in the past and in current times, even when their budget has been next to nothing. For example, the T-34 tank during WWII. (Best tank of the war.) So I wouldn’t say they lack any design talent.
In short even without the F-22 Raptor. The F-35 will provide more than a match for any future threat………..
Why don’t Japan go for the F-35 instead, then? Surely they’ll have no problems purchasing that one? But saying that, they haven’t really showed any interest in F-35. Unless I’ve missed something.
EELightningThis “News” is from a British newspaper…………..Say no more. :rolleyes:
EELightningI am no Irish, but, why he can’t have all that on a seventh floor? If he has the money and wishes to then why not? There could be other reasons, but, not what you are stating. It can definitely be done.
Yeah…Righhhhhhhhht!….Jesus* :rolleyes:
The problems of program cost and technological transfere should be much less important for Japan. After all, if the new fighter which finally chosed by Japan is incapable to deal with the best fighters that Russia and China airforces will have 10 to 15 years later effectively, then what is the point even the Japan has the best fighter-selling deal on earth??
Well, good point. But, would they be better off going with F-22, IF they get the go ahead to buy it, and have all sorts of issues with tech transfere, sanctions etc or go with another option? Theres only Typhoon, and if they go for that option then they’ll not have to worry about tech transfere, probably, maybe even have the option of being a full partner within the consortium.
EELightningWow – pathetic stereotyping there EELightning. Wonderfully united kingdom we live in eh?
Yeah, we live in a country where the Scots, English, Welsh & Irish have had little digs, i.e jokes, at eachother for god knows how long, so, take it as a joke with a pinch of salt. And I like to add, it was a bit of a metaphor for trying to explain to someone about what we were having a discussion about a particiular topic, whom of of which didn’t get what I was trying to say. Hence why I said it, in no mean way of course.
Can we get back on topic, please? Thanks.
If, and its a BIG if, Japan does get the F-22, more than likely its going to have some serious strings attached, very-VERY limited tech transfere, sanctions & what not and of course, stupidly expensive…So, will it be worth all the hassle of buying them?…Call me picky but, not much of a good deal to me. My 2 British pennies worth.
EELightningIts very simple……………………
Any Typhoon operating with external stores will suffer a “performance” penalty……….Of course that depends on the types and numbers?
Regardless, the original claim that a Typhoon could carry two external fuel tanks and eight air to air missiles with no loss in performance. Is respectfully laughable……….
Now, drop the subject and move on……..
Well, believe in what you want. Your words vs his.
EELightningWell, my friend sometimes we will have to just agree to disagree………no hard feelings.;)
Agree.
EELightningInternal Weapons Bays are not new at all. Yet, only today with advances in Stealth, Engines, and Avonics. Have we been able to really exploit its benefits………….
Please, read what I said…
In short “5th Generation Fighters” are a huge leap in capabilies vs preceeding types. Thereby, making them obsolete…………
Just as the Jet Fighter did to Piston Fighter at the close of WWII……..
Oh please…Again, just read what I said…. :rolleyes:
Sorry, the advantage of 5th Generation Fighters vs 4th or even 4.5 Generation is HUGE. As the F-22 Raptor has clearly proven………..Nothing currently flying is even comes close.
I stand by the analogy……:cool:
Believe what you want……..
Respectfully
Scooter, Scooter, Scooter…You didn’t get AT ALL what I was saying…Hmmm…No matter. Its a bit like trying to explain to an Irishman why he can’t have a garden complete with a water fountain and a tool shed because he lives on the 7th floor of a block of flats… :rolleyes:
EELightningYou are forgetting:
RCS less than 0.1m2; AESA; IRST; world class EWS especially developed to handle Russian opponents; strongly improved MMI, improved sensor fusion, world class data link; topped with Meteor and IRIS-T.
To me the 6 to 1 ratio actually sounds very credible.
L
Sounds credible to me too if I’m honest. Even if its just a simulation.
Just for the record, I’d rather have a bunch of Gripen NG’s (Fitted with EJ200’s) to replace the Harrier’s in RAF service than a bunch of F-35’s. Rafale’s for the RN I also add.
Always had a soft spot for the Gripen, its about time its got some credit.
EELightningThat isn’t a leap at all. Remember the Buccaneer? Or the F-105, F-106, F-111, Canberra, Il-28, Yak-28, Vautour . . . . .
Yeah, be surprised how many aeroplanes had internal weapons bays in the past. Maybe I’m too young or haven’t done enough research, but, it seems like LM are boasting about this internal weapons business stuff being “a new thing” when in actual fact, its an older concept than a lot of people think. Certainly refreshed my mind when you mentioned those types of aircraft.
EELightningReally……………
A quote from Wg Cdr LoI Bennet OC 3 (F) Squadron;
“The fact that I can fly throughout the full flight envelope with two tanks and eight missiles with no reduction in performance, gives us the key edge.”
Well, it always comes down to the airframe, engines, where the weapons are placed etc, and while having a thought that the likes of ASRAAM, AMRAAM etc can put up with drag, stress the particular aeroplane can throw at it & shake it off like its nothing, because you know, those things have incredible aerodynamic performances at speeds of mach 3+ & 4+, better than any fighter that can fly at a puny snails pace of mach 2+. At the end of the day, it all depends on the aeroplanes design and what it carries.
They’re his words, either believe them or not, like I say, he knows better, he flies the thing for a living.
And whats with the thumbs down thing for? Don’t like reading what you don’t want to know or something?
EELightningFunny, how you left out the rest of my quote……..:rolleyes:
On behalf of Satorian, it isn’t funny because of what he said, but funny on what you said because you said, and I quote; “No stealth, i.e useless”, (Of which in the REAL English language, people will assume you mean other “non-stealth” aeroplanes are “useless”) then I replied to what you said; “So what you’re saying is, all other “non-stealth” aeroplanes are “useless”?” then you said; “No”. So, what?…Are other “non-stealth” aeroplanes useless or not? Well you know what? Quite a few countries have bought or are in the process of buying “non-stealth” aeroplanes, so they can’t be that “useless” can they?
No, Piston Fighters were useful for a number of years after WWII in certain roles. Yet, clearly Jets were the future………….Same could be said for “Stealth”, Internal Weapons, and in the case of the Raptor. “Super Cruise”:D
But the leap from piston engines to jet engines was HUGE, it changed the world a great deal for military AND civil aviation. The leap from going from external weapons load, to internal weapons load, “stealth”, supercruise isn’t that huge compared to going from a piston engine to a jet engine, yes, they help, no denying that, but having internal weapons, supercruise especially isn’t something new, and dare I say stealth too? The very clever Germans were thinking about that during WWII, no, not in the same extent as today but they had a thought about it neverless. If you want to make a leap forward from a jet engine or something we have now or whats planned for the next 15-20-30+ years, come up with that super-duber scramjet thingy-ma-jig thingy powered by witchcraft.
EELightningThe RAF pilot’s statement in question was made during an interview with AFM back around august 2007, when AFM reported about the RAFs declaration of the Typhoon’s QRA readiness.
The statement was indeed made like quoted, but it can be easily misinterpreted. What the pilot meant is there are no specific limitations, hence no degration in performance. That means there is no specific speed or altitude the aircraft shouldn’t exceed and that the pilot can pull high g’s without care.
BTW in the more recent airshow routines Typhoon’s were mostly carrying a centreline tank while still performing all the stunts we have seen before from empty or just AAM equipped aircraft.
I’ve read the same thing, and I’d take his word for it any day of the week over some people(s) (mention no names, but you know who you are) that have some special sort of negativity anything European, after all, he, the pilot, knows better than any of us including myself. Like I pretty much mentioned earlier, the Typhoon was designed to fight its fights at over supersonic speeds, yes, WITH weapons AND drop tanks-& thats something quite ruddy good in anyones book.
EELightningNo, Stealth………..(i.e. Useless)
So what you’re saying is, all other “non-stealth” aeroplanes are “useless”?
EELightningBTW Neither, the Typhoon nor Rafale would offer the level of Superiority needed to counter Russian or Chinese Flankers and J-10’s. Let alone future 5th Generation Types……….;)
Of course they wouldn’t. Please… :rolleyes:
Sign In
