My comments about his English may sound harsh, but if you’re going to try and write out long-winded paragraphs that cover a great variety of topics you need to do it in a language that you’re comfortable in so that others who can read that language can understand it better. I took several years of French, and I read a fair amount of it, though since I’ve never had the chance to live there I’m not fluent in it…..thus you don’t see me attempting to write long posts in French.

Just a little problem with that – this is an english speaking forum :rolleyes:

I personally reckon your just pissed because he demonstrated the MiG-23 is better in many respects than the fighter that is both your username and avatar. :diablo:

Even a full blown superpower with about 30 times our defence budget can only afford about 180 of the things.

Because their politicans are exceedingly stupid – they paid the development costs then stopped purchasing the thing.

At $140 million a pop, the F-22 is a bargain, especially if the JSF looks like its going to be north of $100 million itself.

Erm… CATIA etc are not the only things making a difference in modern design.

FEA (structural analysis) programs like Abaqus/Patran and CFD (aerodynamics) programs like Fluent/CFX/StarCD etc give designers the ability to optimise more than ever.

Also, bespoke programs made in codes like Fortran (ugggh!) or MATLAB are extremely useful – for example the TORNADO stability & control program in MATLAB.

Alot of the larger companies will use their own codes, I know Airbus does, I’ve been told the Renault F1 team use a variation of this. A commerical code needs to be a jack-of-all trades, while customised codes can provide much better accuracy/CPU loading characteristics etc for the jobs being asked of it.

*As for the original question – the modern method is much more cost-effective.

They are doing it at the moment ( both fatigue and Production)

It will be very interesting to see how far away it is from their FEA projections.

I know trying to model composite structures in FEA was giving Airbus serious headaches.

Perhaps Boeing, with its military connections, has already overcome this problem.

…..would the aircraft be capable of dodging the likes of an R73 or a python and make the missile lose its lock on the target?

Flex is right. Watch the AIM-9X or similar videos of other high off boresight helmet assisted missiles. Super Hornet or air show friendly super MiG-29… if it is one of the newer missiles… your dead. The newer ones are more high-contrast, high resolution visual. Even some flare systems might not be of any help.

Ever time a new missile is fielded its the same rubbish – I no longer fall for it.

First it was Vietnam… “heck, we don’t even need a gun”

Then pre-gulf 1, “ach, the early sparrow was a bad missile – the updates are much better – it’ll work 100% this time”

Then gulf 1, “other airforces cannot operate BVR like the USAF – now we’ll show how good the whole thing is”

Then kosovo, “we were transitioning from sparrow to early amraams… our new weapons are no-escape, fire and forget super arms – you might as well bail out when you detect a lock-up”

Sorry… but I think its 4 or 5 times in history now we’ve been told the fighter is virtually obsolete – an ancient tool like the sword – no longer able to fly in a sky with modern AAMs :rolleyes:

Why should this time be any different?

Its generally reckoned that the missile has to be around 4 times more manouverable than the aircraft to be able to kill it. Well, current aircraft are designed for +9g, modern missiles are apparently 50g or so. Therefore, improve g suits and aircraft to +12.5g restores parity.

Of course, there is also the developing of lasers to blind IR AAMs – I believe such ‘dazzlers’ have already been demonstrated.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/laircm.htm

To go back a wee bit further, I think the WW1 Fokkers had all moving along with the Wright brothers 😀

Correct, most rudders in WW I were all moving I think.

Well… According to the datas publicly available, I beg to differ. In its current implementation, the EJ200 appears to be highly rated in many areas when compared to other engines

I think the EJ200 is quite easily the most powerful engine per unit of mass flow rate through the engine IIRC.

That includes more powerful (per unit mass flow) than the beasts in the F-22. [again, IIRC]