Clearly, the F-35 critics will believe almost anything negative about the F-35. Yet, disregard anything out of hand from highly experienced “Test Pilot” with first hand knowledge! As I have said from the start the people with true access to the F-35 program speak highly of the Lightning. Which, includes the best minds from the JSF Partner Nations and some of the best test pilot in the world. Which, speaks volumes in my book.
yes scoots but you should not be ‘blinded’ by claims, some things are just common sense. I’m talking about the typhoon claims, the SH comparison holds alot of water however, just about any fighter can kinematically outperform the E/F
Well that’s blatantly not true, just look at one big example, the RuAF.
The tradeoff on the MIG-29 seems to be absolutely minimal, in terms of aircraft footprint and flight control integration. Flip a switch, and that is all the pilot has to do. test pilots commented on how little difference it makes for the pilot in terms of getting used to the TVC.
It’s not a “total game changer”, but for the tradeoffs, a competently done TVC system like on the Al-31 and the RD-33 seems like its worth it.
I agree its silly to think TVC is a game changer, but sure its a nice asset to have if weight, CG and complexity do not compromise anything else too negatively. There has to be a drive to want it and its just not there on the Euro-jets, the ATF competition did not request it either, LM ‘established’ its necessity. Plus I think having the ‘option’ of post-stall manoeuvring is not a desirable quality, rather it improves first-shot capability a little in the subsonic regime, however as stated a million times advanced HMS and HOBS missiles pretty much seal the deal. I think in the subsonic regime any developed russian fighter, US teen jet, Euro-jet when combined with HOBS and HMS has no distinct advantage. A supersonic merge however comparatively gives a larger advantage to the Eurofighter and F-22 and to a far lesser extent the Rafale.
You guys make we laugh. Who says the Super Hornet will out perform the F-35??? Yet, when I provide an experts that have access to both aircraft you disregard it out of hand! I provided a quote from a highly experienced Test Pilot. That has thousand of flight hours in the Hornets, Vipers, Raptors, Typhoons, and now the F-35 Lighting. Of course he and Lockheed Martin must be lying??? Funny, why isn’t Boeing lying??? Plus, can anybody provide a source that has access to the F-35 and claims its performance is lower than advertised???
Scooter, stop making me laugh all the time, please!
The only way some of his claims will be settled is after RAF pilot comparisons when in service etc…that, or common sense but whatever. Not a credible source but at least some context;http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-will-never-beat-the-eurofighter-2013-2.
If a typhoon can supercruise at M1.4, with 6AAM and two tanks, can out accelerate just about any fighter (past figures M0.9, 20k ft better than F-22), bar SOME F-22 regimes surely it casts a shadow of doubt about a fighter which had transonic acceleration figures (which were never meant to be outstanding, MUST NOT approach F-22) extended by 40+ seconds in order to achieve specification. Something just doesn’t add up here. Plus Flynn’s pay check might take a hit if he explained how the F-35 did not manage to cope with ‘4th’ gen aircraft performance figures, that after the first few days of war and tomahawk missile poundings could do 90% of the F-35’s job just fine.
USAF should have gone with FB-22’s and let the rest sort itself out, Europe should have designed their own jet. 1 aircraft can simply not replace every other aircraft in existence, it will have pitfalls, there is no single sided coin my friend
Guys what happened?
?
Quote from a former Typhoon Test Pilot!
– – – Updated – – –
Scooter, you are always entertaining. :very_drunk:
Correct and for that reason it was selected as fast low level striker together with an INS becoming standard for other fighters much later.
When the Luftwaffe operated at combat weights (4 tanks and B43) I wonder how it coped twisting through the local topography at low alt. I assume pilots had to plan there routes pretty dam well as to avoid ‘surprise’ obstacles on route. The Tornado managed to hug the hill sides so effectively mainly due to the TFR and INS but I’m not sure on the F-104G how effective those actually were.
Could you be perhaps be less cryptic, i’m not understanding what it is that i’m missing?
We discussed balance in designs and you offered a scenario which you stated was unlikely; in response to my comment on that you pointed me towards the Tornado as an adaptable and flexible design.
I don’t follow how the nature of the Tornado design links to the Typhoon design and why that shows the Typhoon as being balanced?
(I’m not saying the Typhoon is not balanced, just in case anybody who is likely to have a tanturm reads this.)
The Tornado was similar to the Typhoon in that it was predominately oriented around a specific role with other capabilities, whilst good, secondary none the less. The Typhoon being AtA focussed and full blown strike secondary. (Just need to speak to a few chaps flying the things and its obvious where its priorities lie). However you must remember as long as the Tornado is complementing the Typhoon UK/Germany there is not the urgent need for expanded capability.
What kind of range figures does the Rafale get in carrying 2 Apache, mica’s, 3 2000L tanks and CFT’s? It looks like its eaten one or two too many pain au chocolat 🙂
Looks nice and smart angling of canard edges to reduce surface discontinuity return, but those engine and intake angles look a little too vertical for decent side RCS at high alt.
<=63 degrees cant angle means it has approximately the same beam stealth as the F-35, J-20 and J-31 … so meant to operate at medium alt or less stealthy than the F-22 if at high alt.
Very similar side RCS profile to the F-35, ignoring the lack of vertical tail. High beam RCS from 20 degrees below horizontal right the way around the lower hemisphere.
Will also require a RCS blocker.
3 layer leading edge slats?
Concepts can never really be analysed dramatically opposed to final design. Look at some of the original ATF concept drawings deliberately published to mis-lead.
friendly,
Etienne
Thank you, never seen it in that camo before 🙂
I think JSR lost the plot long ago …
Is it just me or others have the same feeling ?Cheers .
He’d never found it in the first place.
[ATTACH]212913[/ATTACH]
Awesome pic, can I ask which airforce is that?
There was a close project also of a mini one engined rafale, i think Serbia is trying to revive it.
Yes but that would not have been a LO airframe. MAKO, whilst having the potential to be a sophisticated light aircraft, also would have useful LO capabilities the likes which are not demonstrated by any other platform in this range, that is its unique point.
Judging by the lack of thread discussion I’m guessing people do not see it as a viable aircraft 😀
Don’t forget that even if the Su35 turns on its radar & actually picks up the Rafales in front of him, he wouldn’t know if there is any other foe listening in the area as well.
Nic
yes i agree, the string is unlimited……
because they know that their emissions would be seen even further, giving away their position, plain and simple.
If they have to go into a zone without support, they’ll do their best to avoid being detected, meaning, they’ll fly silent and listen for any indication of a presence of another aircraft (or ground radar or anything similar)
again, imagine it’s night, you and a friend of yours have to look for each other. each one has a handheld light. the first one to see the other wins.
do you turn on your light?
If the rafales were attacking (assume 2) and the su-35 does pic up both it will force an engagement however. As explained any scenario pretty much described here is far too simplistic in general, the discussion is generally revolving around how long is a piece of string.
and MAKO, while a nice trainer (T-38 replacement) would struggle to provide a sufficient level or performance to act as an air force’s unique aircraft
Yes, as stated, I’m not saying the principle ac for 90% applications, more an F-35 complement. Or a frontline ac in airforces that can not justify gripens cost vs capability over existing platforms e.g advanced F-16 derivatives, its LO abilities would be unique to that force.