Really?? Since there is no “official definer” of what a 5th Gen Fighter is, you cannot go by that narrowly defined spec.
Yeah, I was trying to tie it down.
I’m being a little mischievous really… ‘cos if one applies the LM criteria as determined based on the F-22, the F-35 isn’t 5th gen. Same applies the other way around.
So every time I see any press release talk about “5th gen” advantages, I immediately roll my eyes and dismiss it as PR bullsh!t.
If LM can’t make one definition of 5th gen, but move the goalposts continually to suit themselves, then it is obviously not a ‘standard’ worth paying attention to…
Um… i think it’s better to just ignore the likes of jackjack
Ahhh, yes. I remember that clown.
He’s regularly on the aviation week website talking absolute sh!te Probably a school kid that suffers from severe ****/elbow syndrome.
…
I note you still haven’t provided any worthwhile information in all the threads you have been in…
Yep, we should all listen to you, only you have the knowledge, not those dumba**ed F-35 pilots! :rolleyes: You couldn’t make this s**t up :diablo:
You still aren’t reading what I am saying are you?
IF YOU BELIEVE WITHOUT QUESTION THE WORDS OF ANYONE WHO STANDS TO LOSE THEIR JOB OVER WHAT THEY SAY THEN YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
I can break out the crayons if this is still too complex for you…
Looks like I was bang-on in post 289! 😉
More or less.
If you believe every word from anyone who would stand to lose their job over those words then you are an even bigger fool than you appear from your posts.
Were the AIM-120s fired in pairs? That would automatically reduce the PK to 50% immediately, would it not?
Now your asking.
No idea, my memory isn’t that good! 😮
I do think I recall multiple shots at the same target with no hits – dunno if those were simultaneous launches though which would be indicative of Pk <=50% elsewhere….
It is, as it always has been, a VLO RCS fighter with advanced (fused) avionics.
So not:
– LO RCS
– Supercruise
– Network-centric avionics
– Significantly superior supersonic agility
I suppose that you actually think the people should be listening to you instead,
Rather than 3 direct employees of the F-35 program that stand to lose their jobs if they do not toe the line?
I would like to think any rational person wouldn’t take the word of anyone effectively speaking under that threat without cross-checking what they are saying.
Of course, you, you’d believe anything.
I note you haven’t actually provided one bit of useful information* to any of the threads you have frequented yet. Not overly surprising since you don’t have any knowledge to impart.
*Unless you count a PR video as useful. Not much in the way of quantitative information in there so I would consider it nigh-on-useless.
Just because a weapon doesn’t work 100% of the time doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use it or that it isn’t effective.
I call Pk under 10% worrying! (especially given the extremely favourable engagement circumstances)
So if you’ve an F-22 load out of 8 slammers and 2 sidewinders…
There may well be instances where all your slammers miss their targets and your reduced to WVR?
Thats OK. ‘cos with the F-22 you can pretty much do whatever the f**k you want and no-one can stop you.
However, if your in an F-35, and your 2 slammers don’t work… you have 2x sidewinders for WVR in a plane that is not best suited to it.
Yes… I hear pilots slate their incoming aircraft all the time…
So. You have:
F-35 test pilot from BAe systems
F-35 test pilot from the RAF
The UK national deputy for JSF
[no vested interest there then – none of them stand to lose out by declaring the F-35 not fit for purpose – nosiree]
Declaring the F-35 is great for day 1 because it has:
“day one capability, especially through stealth, and 5th gen piece and also interoperability”
This 5th gen definition keeps on getting fuzzier and fuzzier. What is it these days?
[Oh, and I guess you folks missed the bit about not being able to replace Typhoons when the airframe hours are expended with Typhoons as they will no longer be getting built in 2025-2030…]
The majority of aerial kills in the last 25 years or so have been with BVR missiles, have they not.
What would that encompass?
Gulf I
Allied Force
Gulf II
any others?
Gulf I:
On the face of it, the AIM-7 would seem to have performed all right in Gulf I – with numerous (possibly even the majority) of kills performed using it.
That says nothing of Pk.
Allied Force:
In Allied force, the AIM-120 performed extremely poorly. I remember an AFM article on the Yugo MiG-29s, and did a count of the number of missiles fired. the kill ratio was under 10%… and virtually all of those Fulcrums had either defective radar and/or defective RWR.
Gulf II:
Any combat?
1. Its a cheap and easy way of doing it and not particularly unusual in the aerospace industry. On many occasions highly classified aircraft suitably covered up have been transported in broad daylight.
2. It might not be that easy to remove the wings, without knowing the general structure of the airframe under the camo tarp we can’t really judge fully why they were forced to transport it that way.
3. Depends on how heavy it is stripped out, the Hip is really a medium lift type. The Mi17 has a sling load of around four tons whilst the Z-8 about 5 tons. It might well be its too heavy even gutted! Also there is a far greater risk of damage to the airframe sling loading it.
4. Not an unusual scenario within the aerospace industry. Sometimes the assembly plant hasn’t the proper facilities for test flights.As for the unusual transport angle, to my eye it might well be done that way to make it easier to transfer the airframe off the truck.
1. Well, if they want the world to see something – there is no better way of doing it than pretending to hide something.
2. Indeed – which points towards a final destination that does not do assemblies… otherwise the wings would have been put on there.
3. Damage is possible. Fair enough.
4. Hmmmmmm. Very unconvinced by that. Proper test flights yes, ok. First flight from assembly plant airstrip and subsequent ferry flight to dedicated test facility, no.
Its still vastly superior to what it replaces though.
I don’t think there is any question it is a step… no, a leap forward over the Harrier.
However, comparing F-35C to, say, the Rafale. Is the F-35… which will enter service some 15 years later… really a big step forward? Is it even a step forward?
In some areas, yes, it is much better than Rafale, in others, it would appear to be a significant regression.
Any thoughts on the different designs?
Well… you could hypothesize that the wing area has reduced in comparison to both Tanaris/Neuron. Possibly aspect ratio has increased though.
You could infer a number of things from that.
However, to me it looks like the back end of Neuron stuck onto the front end of Tanaris with a bit of forebody extension.
I certainly wouldn’t read too much into it.
Shame there’s no F35 news out there.:rolleyes:
In fresh F-35 news…
its still sh!t! :diablo: :p:D