wrightwing6 new Su-34s to be delivered by the end of the year
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2010/11/12/su34/
Production is picking up, thankfully.
At that rate, they’ll have a squadron of them in 3 more years.:cool:
wrightwingHow?
The Pak/FA still has a lot of testing to go through. And so does the F-35. Also, the big killing stick you are depending on is the AMRAAM, which in combat vs. targets with poor capability has a PK of around 50 percent. If the Pak/FA works, it doesn’t have to be super-stealthy. It has to be stealthy enough to lower the PK of the AMRAAM down to that of a Vietnam era Sparrow or worse.
This figure isn’t exactly true first of all. If you fire 2 missiles, and they both come within the lethal radius, that doesn’t mean 50% Pk. Unless we know the exact circumstances for each kill, with regards to the missiles fired, then one can’t simply divide the kills/missiles fired, to establish the effectiveness. Secondly, those were A/B models. To imply that the C7/D models haven’t been vastly improved, is a bit disingenuous.
wrightwingAn interesting point that a few notable folks here are in denial about, even though on more than one occasion links stating that very fact have been provided. When you look at the computing power available in the 70s vs. what was available when the F-35 was designed, there’s no comparison in terms of the ability to predict RCS values.
wrightwingYeah you got there in the end 😀 Just 14 years development was it…not sure can’t quite see past the 9 years of dust on this Storm Shadow users manual… :p
I won’t argue with the growing pains involved in this program(but a number of very effective systems had similar troubles in their infancy). The point is now that it works, it allows the pilot to attack targets further away than any Stormshadow variant. Imagine if you will, an F-35C flying 400-500nm inland, and then launching the JASSM-ER with a >600nm range. That gives a pretty good reach to a CVBG, while still remaining outside of any IADS range. Another scenario might be if the CVBG wanted to stay further away from shore for even greater surprise, it could remain ~1000nm away from shore, and still be able to strike targets >100nm inland.
wrightwing-I’d love to see the examples of which you speak, where economies thrive due to public spending on entitlements.
-Nobody needs that plane because 20-30yr old designs are going to be sufficient for 30 more years, or because there are other companies building fighters that would be competing for sales?
-The F-22 is a better fighter, but that’s not a justification for why the F-35 isn’t needed. F-16s/18s are worse, and for the US that’s the alternative.
Cruise missiles have their roles, but also have many limitations. I’d love to hear how they’re always faster and better.
-If flexibility is of no concern, then you can build single mission aircraft for each mission, and for high, medium, and low intensity conflicts.
-I’d love to see the actual quote, and the time frame this US General spoke about the Osprey. From all the news I’ve heard, it’s been doing very well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,208954,00.html
like these?
Additionally, during major operations in Now Zad, in the Helmand Province, Marine Corps’ Ospreys arrived from different directions at 3 a.m. “with speed and range the enemy didn’t expect,” Trautman says. “The Osprey was the most important participant in getting a reinforced company into that town in short order.” More important, the Osprey flew “two loads in the time it took the CH-53 to do one.”
according to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, who cites numbers in the 70-80% range. “It’s on that trajectory” to 90%, he claimed enthusiastically at the Pentagon last month.
-I have no problems with welfare for those in legitimate need. The problem is when it’s given to those not in legitimate need. I also support education and health care reforms, but the solution isn’t throwing money at the problems.
I’d love to see just one example of how social programs cause an economy to flourish. What makes an economy flourish, is having people that are employed, and self-sufficient, not reliant on government hand outs.
wrightwingNot much use having 3 times the range if it can’t hit the target;)
http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123174231
The Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, successfully completed Lot 7 Reliability Assessment Program flight tests with a record of 15 successes out of 16 flights as officially scored by the independent test data scoring board Oct. 22.
The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) successfully completed its sixth flight demonstration in a recent test at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The JASSM-ER program is now six for six flight test successes.
You were saying….:rolleyes::cool:
wrightwingWell I guess all depends on how long you want an air campaign to last, in order for that air space to become permissive(or how much risk you want to assume). If on the other hand you want freedom of movement from day one, in order to hit critical, time sensitive targets, it’s not always feasible to shoot from hundreds of miles away.
As for the B-52, it still has many uses, even when airspace is non-permissive. At the outset, it can use stand off weapons, and once air defenses are reduced, it can be used against tactical targets in support of friendly ground forces, due to its long persistance(along with the B-1).
wrightwingUK doesn’t use it and almost certainly doesn’t want it, Storm Shadow is battle proven and reliable. As for range they are comparable, SS’s range is classified but is usually stated at over 250km’s. Jassm is listed as having 370km range.
But is there a Stormshadow-ER variant, as the JASSM-ER’s range is ~3x that of the standard JASSM?
wrightwingIts this type of narrow minded thinking that will make sure that you would not need any army anymore
Without social wellfare, you will be at the same sad, poor and depressive level as your enemies.
This will make sure that no-one will want to attack (or visit) you anymore as your country will have as insignificant value as those currently managed by the Taliban.
Maybe that is a good solution?
Actually quite the opposite. If wasteful government spending was cut, the tax rates could be cut, which would stimulate not only business investment/hiring, but consumer spending(which would stimulate business/hiring). The best policy is increasing the tax base rather than having a large number receiving unemployment/wellfare/universal health care/etc… We’ve blown hundreds of billions of dollars, with very little to show for it in the last few years. That savings could’ve kept the F-22 line open, along with helping the F-35 and other programs.
wrightwingWith the US intention to keep the B-52 in service until 2040, a service life of 88 years, does any western airforce ever need to develop new aircraft? I’m pretty sure the Tonka could go for another 25 years with suitable system mods, Tornado GR10 anyone?
The B-52 can’t fly in non-permissive air space though, which is a pretty limiting factor for your tactical air support.
wrightwingThat’s my point. It doesn’t do much good if something’s so prohibitively costly, that you can’t get a tactically significant number. The F-22’s cost could’ve been mitigated somewhat though, had it not gone through the death of a thousand cuts.
wrightwingThe weapon rack setup was included in my points. The whole central and rear part of the fuselage incl. engine nacelles needed to be reshaped to accomodate another missile bays.. That meant technological risks, higher cost and delays, as listed before.. Nothing of this puts the YF-22 as superior to YF-23. Just closer to the series version..
F-22 advantages
– better agility
– superior weapon’s bay layout
– more mature/less risky design
– less costly
Seeing as how the final design changed, there’s no way of knowing for sure how many of the advantages the YF-23 had, remained vs. the F-22. Production F-22s have supercruised at speeds higher than ever mentioned for the YF-22(and YF-23 to the best of my knowledge). There’s also no way to determine how much RCS difference there was between the prototype and production model.
wrightwingApplying a little reasoned thought here…if we don’t know enough about the F35’s performance to say whether the Typhoon is superior in some areas, which seems an entirely reasonable view, how can you and others justify the many assertations that the F35 is superior?
You’ve just clearly stated that we don’t know enough to comment on it’s performance.
Well LM claims it will have superior performance to F-16/18s in ITR/STR, and acceleration. The Typhoon also exhibits those qualities. What we don’t know is how the Typhoon and F-35 compare in those areas. The Typhoon may very well be superior in all of those categories, but no one here can say at this point in time, that’s gospel truth. I suspect each will have areas of the performance envelope where they have advantages over one another.
wrightwingMy point is that we simply don’t know enough about the F-35’s performance, to say where the Typhoon is superior(aside from top speed).
wrightwingA worse performer at what though? Surviving missions in non-permissive environments?
Sign In
