Another thing is….

Is it cheaper to buy, say, Gripen along with an array of appropriate stand-off munitions – trading the advantage of its lower purchase and operating cost during peacetime against the expensive munitions which would only seldom be fired when on NATO/UN duty in hostile environments.

Or do you purchase the F-35, allowing the possibility of somewhat cheaper munitions, but the jet itself comes at a larger purchase and larger operating cost.

Answers on a postcard please to:

Key Publishing Ltd,
Units 1-4
Gwash Way Industrial Estate
Ryhall Road
Stamford
Lincolnshire
PE9 1XP

Who int eh right mind will actually attack canada?

No-one.

But then that straight away begs the question… why bother buying at all? Its an awful lot of money on white elephants… and the F-35 isn’t even a cool white elephant (like say, a Mustang or Camaro… its more like an Evo, which, while high performance, doesn’t exactly exude coolness long since they’ve stopped rallying)

Why? What is the purpose of Canadian fast jets?

To serve as a proper interceptor and guardian of Canadian airspace? In which case, there are really few choices given the vast distances to be covered. MiG-31BM being at the top.

Or to serve as a “me-too” for international cooperation? In which case its hard to beat the Gripen for interoperability and low running costs.

Placing the aircraft in a hangar with a low ceiling. The Russian aircraft carrier can have double decker hangar height of 5 meters.

Hmmm, normally I’d say the vertical fins are significantly higher than the cockpit, but due to the all-moving nature of them and the 3D TVC, PAK-FA’s vertical fins are uncharacteristically small.

PAK-FA
http://joinindianforce.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/1367885728_1781_ft0_sukhoi_pak-fa_landing.jpg

J-20
http://defense-update.com/images_wp/j20_2.jpg

F-22
http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/F-22-043-FF.jpg

F-35
http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/Lockheed_F-35_JSF.jpg

J-31
http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/j-31.jpg

Of them all, you could maybe say the PAK-FA and F-35 did have height requirements in their design.

It just shows how stupidly dysfunctional procurement is at times.

ASRAAM was originally being developed to be the IR solution for all NATO (except france – of course haha).

The US knew the ATF (and at that stage, JAST) would have internal bays long before ASRAAM came along – so why wasn’t ejector launch part of the requirements?

IS ASRAAM capable of launch from an ejector rack?

From what I know of it (which admittedly isn’t an awful lot), no.

If not, it would require missile redesign and extensive qualification testing.

Indeed. Unless they manage to add this much-talked about launch rail on the bay door I suppose – which will involve a suite of qualification testing itself anyway.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-dassault-question-raises-its-head-at-eads-389269/

Read this – and see why I hate the f**king stockmarket and the w**kers that work in it.

Now that EADS has managed to shake off the chains of French and German state ownership and turn itself into the normal company its investors have long wanted it to become, its investors – one of them, anyway – want it to behave like a normal company. As The Children’s Investment Fund Management, or TCI, sums it up, that means to “run the company for profits and the interest of public shareholders” – like itself, a holder of 1%-plus of EADS’s shares.

To that end, in a letter to EADS boss Tom Enders, TCI partner Ben Walker has called for EADS to dispose of its shareholding in Dassault Aviation, maker of Falcon business jets, Rafale fighters and an icon of French industry. Walker argues that EADS’s 46.32% of Dassault Aviation should be sold by public offering or to a trade buyer, as it is a “poor use of EADS capital [which] provides no synergies and has limited strategic value”.

Walker reckons that stake is worth around €4 billion ($5.3 billion), which is equal to more than 10% of EADS’s current market capitalisation, and is thus “a poor use of EADS capital”. Sale proceeds should go back to shareholders, he tells Enders, either through an extension of EADS’s ongoing share buyback scheme or by a special dividend.

So – lets ditch something that is (1) making money despite adverse trading conditions, (2) has valuable knowledge, and (3) will continue to develop knowledge (which can result in further profits in the future) for a one-off payment to a bunch of greedy f**kers after short-term profit.

NASA classify F-22 & F-35 as MLO at best, (Moderate Low Observable)

Anyone here with a decent level of technical knowledge will already know that, but there are others here who simply wouldn’t hear of it; and it would be a waste of time, effort and bandwidth for the former group to attempt to explain that to the latter bunch. Although I would say many use the terms VLO and LO to differentiate the F-22 and F-35, rather than as absolute barometers (say, relative to the B-2).

Away from the nose, for any fighter-like platform, RCS will rise significantly. At longer radar wavelengths, for any fighter-like platform, RCS will rise significantly. That will be the same for F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, J-20, J-31 and any others I haven’t mentioned.

The degree of rise and the (non) uniformity of the RCS for the whole range of azimuthal angles away from “straight-on” are what separate the above from the rest.