Can we please go back to the topic !!???

Cheers, Deino

Sorry, my bad 😮

I’ll try and resist the urge from here on (maybe the admin can siphon off the F-35 related posts into another thread?)

Now there’s a question for a thread topic; is it possible to develop a 5G fighter which costs USD50 mn or less?

Its called the Saab Gripen NG. 😉

I have always felt that if we were to have new CVs (and I would rather not) then the Typhoon aught to have been developed for the role, the risks and costs involved in developing a supersonic STOVL fighter being too great. I think this view is being borne out by the F-35B.

I think it just shows how right the French were to insist the FEFA be capable of carrier operations.

Such a stupid decision by the UK not to see that as an obvious increase in flexibility and risk reduction (when considered in the context of the need of the MOD as a whole).

Where are people getting the idea that a larger intake = better high speed performance?

Maybe you wanna start to look at the streamtubes that are upstream large commerical turbofans (running only subsonically) to get an idea of what is actually wanted in the engine for optimal pressure ratios across the fan stage(s) and compressor stages….

I think that the F35 doesn’t endanger the US lead. The politicians do. The F35 was designed to replace F16 and F18 and with air to ground as its preferable task. The F22 would take care of air dominance. The problem rises, when the politicians axe the F22 and suddenly, the F35 must do the F22’s work too.

Stall the ball there!

Cast your mind back to the origins of the F-16 and the F/A-18… i.e. the YF-16 and YF-17. Now, what was their prime, indeed, what was their only design goal?

The suspicions about the F-35’s dogfighting ability certainly do not stem from it being “designed” to replace the F16 and F/A-18. Rather, they stem from the question; is it capable of replacing the F-16 and F/A-18

what these UCAV will resemble and do.

They’ll take the form of RAMjet powered SAMs.

Capable of persistently engaging a target so if they miss first time, they can turn and have another go.

More like a homing torpedo than a traditional missile.

Ex- F-15 pilot Doug Dildy fought F-14As during training.

So in a BVR engagement a mere 30-degree “check turn” and ramp down to a lower altitude was usually enough to break lock and negate the otherwise “dreaded” Phoenix. “

Except that of course the other guy now has you on defensive maneouvering and can hit you with a follow up volley of sparrows before you can get your nose back on him and your speed up to give your missiles the same range.

Not an entirely unexpected papering over the cracks from a pilot too cocky in his own aircraft and not appreciative enough of others.

[Note Su-50 – that is not a dig at you, but at Doug Dildy]

Political baggage involves flight restrictions and rules that unfairly penalize one opponent over another. You’ve read something into my statement.

I’m struggling to think of a WVR ruling that will not equally handicap both sides; and none will seek to limit the performance advantage of any particular airframe.

BVR…. well, as Bager has mentioned; viz ID + engagement envelopes are the norm – but they would handicap the longer ranged weapons…

Hence why I was hinting at did you think the F-15 was better long range. The problem is my failure to come up with some ROEs that will be detrimental to the F-15 and not your sentence… if you can suggest some specific rules that would help!