Page 52 – Key Publishing

Sintra

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 3,443 total)

← 1 2 3 … 51 52 53 … 228 229 230 →

Author

Posts
November 1, 2016 at 11:45 am in reply to: Chinese air power thread 18 #2166732

Sintra
Participant

Now could the PLAAF be nice and release the exact dimensions of the J-20?
Pretty please?

November 1, 2016 at 11:38 am in reply to: Can the Tejas and JF-17 even match the old Lavi? #2166746

Sintra
Participant

That’s the thing with what-if scenarios: no one can ever prove or disprove anything.

With regard to cost, however, I am at an advantage in that I’ve actually read the book. The U.S. General Accounting Office placed the unit fly-away cost for the Lavi at $17.8 million in 1985 dollars, on a 300 aircraft purchase. The cost for an F-16 with an equivalent avionics suite was placed at $16.9 million. For considerably more range and payload compared to the F-16 models of that day a Grumman-built Lavi would have been very cost competitive.

Again, it’s a what-if scenario. No one will ever know. We can both can state whatever opinion we want, but neither of us can ever prove anything.

Actually the 16.9$ million was a Viper with the Lavi avionics, thats exactly whats written in the book, not an equivalent, something quite extraordinary, why would GD stuck an Elta radar on the F-16 when the first AN/APG-68 was delivered in 1984?
On top of that we could discuss whats exactly the “Fly Away Unit Cost” and what it would cost the USAF to create an entire new logistical chain for a new aircraft that was basicaly a Viper equivalent. While i accept that its a “what if” scenario and we can have diferent opinions (well, thats an obvious one 🙂 ) i have absolutely no doubts that the chances of the IAI Lavi being fielded by the USAF were pretty much zero. But yes, you are right, impossible to prove anything.

https://books.google.pt/books?id=PlpVCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT258&lpg=PT258&dq=U.S.+General+Accounting+Office+Lavi&source=bl&ots=YKFDrLZzCt&sig=7wdEK3LxArn_KSqIaAzRTnRXacM&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSvKmvuIfQAhWCyRoKHcz9Ac0Q6AEIYTAM#v=onepage&q=U.S.%20General%20Accounting%20Office%20Lavi&f=false

Cheers

October 31, 2016 at 5:52 pm in reply to: Can the Tejas and JF-17 even match the old Lavi? #2168573

Sintra
Participant

Except that Israel couldn’t have sold the US-made engines or the other US-made, US-developed or US-financed parts without US permission. Indeed, Israel isn’t even able to sell entirely Israeli-developed & Israeli-made major weapons if the USA objects, because of its dependence on US money & technology. There are several cases of Israeli weapons sales being cancelled because of US vetoes.

Entirely correct.

October 31, 2016 at 5:51 pm in reply to: Can the Tejas and JF-17 even match the old Lavi? #2168600

Sintra
Participant

Forget about export orders to smaller air forces around the world. A Grumman/IAI Lavi would have been a threat to F-16 sales to the U.S. Air Force. The Lavi was intended from the beginning for the strike role. The F-16 was not. It would have made far more sense for the U.S. Air Force to procure a U.S.-made Lavi for the Wild Weasel role than to develop the F-16CJ.

Not a chance. The entire “Wild Weasel” Viper program was a way to suplement and then to replace the F-4G fleet “on the cheap”. In that particular competition three diferent aircrafts were evaluated, a version of the Tornado (sponsored by Northrop), a F-15 WWeasel Twin Seater (based on the “Strike”) that was rumoured to be the USAF favorite and the Viper, this last one won on costs, the chances of the USAF implementing an entire new platform for a very specific mission right after the fall of the Berlin Wall (peace dividends et al) was zero.

October 31, 2016 at 5:39 pm in reply to: Meteor range. Which aircraft can exploit its range better? #2168630

Sintra
Participant

sorry rvv-bd is vapor ware, so is aam-4, and the israeli one.

Do your homework before writing, i presume that Google is available in China?
The AAM-4 entered service in 1999, its improved version, the AAM-4B was delivered to the JASDF in 2010. The I-Derby ER and the izdeliye 810 are actual projects, they are far from “vapor ware”.

October 31, 2016 at 5:20 pm in reply to: Meteor range. Which aircraft can exploit its range better? #2168690

Sintra
Participant

Link 16 has two major weaknesses.

First, it is omnidirectional. Anyone transmitting Link 16 data is known to everyone, friend and foe alike, who is within 350 km.

Second, Link 16, because it works like a text message, doesn’t have the bandwidth to stream highly dynamic targeting data to a shooter. If it did, there would be no need for Talon Hate.

Whats publicly available sugests that a) Talon Hate exists because it can receive IFDL from Raptors and translate it to Link 16 to other platforms near by, its a translator, either you use such a pod or install an IFDL modem in every Eagle, Viper and Hornet in the fleet and b) an increase of bandwidth of MADL over Link 16 was not an objective, that was clearly stated in severall articles in the likes of Flight, AW by the beggining of the decade (how that actually turned out i dont have specifics).

Cheers

October 29, 2016 at 8:16 pm in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2172633

Sintra
Participant

The ‘Magic’ Behind Radar-Absorbing Materials For Stealthy Aircraft

Thats… impressive.

October 29, 2016 at 12:09 am in reply to: Israel's Lavi Fighter Program #2174211

Sintra
Participant

Combat radii of 2130 km?
The Lavi had a worse fuel fraction than today’s Gripen E and its combat radii was 800 km bigger?!
Actually thats a way bigger combat radii than the likes of the Rafale or the F35 and double the one from its most equivalent aircrafts, the Gripen A/C and the first blocks of Vipers. That number is irrealistic.

October 28, 2016 at 10:58 am in reply to: Israel's Lavi Fighter Program #2175373

Sintra
Participant

these are lies

China has NO problem in saying they can work with Russia to make a plane. (unlike say Russians)
L-15 is a perfect example where they received help from Yakobelb

but all these other examples are baseless.
the Lavi is a very small and underranged airplane. the J10 is so much bigger, they cannot be the same. It has a similar lay out, but do you say Eurofighter is a copy of Lavi?
Z-10 is Chinese. Kamov helicopters have two rotors and are large. not their style
Chinese flankers are legal that is why Russia doesn’t complain. Even if they are illegal, what can Russia do? they cannot stop it.

The first mockups of the J10 were Lavi clones, they were not more or less similar , they were THE Lavi, they didnt look like a Typhoon, they didnt look like the J9, those mockups were the Lavi in PLAAF markings, period.
On top of that we have photograpic evidences of the J10 design team right in front of a bl###y Lavi, and if this was not enough we have a bucket load of Chinese hardware that is without a question a direct copy of Israeli equipment in the exact same timeframe of the development of the fr####ing Lavi, the most obvious example the AAM that would have been the, guess what, the main air to air munition of the… bleeding Lavi, and if THIS was not enough we have the Russians stating to Janes that Chengdu actually received one Lavi airframe and quite a few Israeli sources stating that “yeah, we helped”…
Lies, all damned lies!

You dont have to be a genius to understand that in 1989 China lost access to the PW1120, so they went to the Russians, more precisely to the AL31 wich is a bigger, heavier, more powerful engine, so they had the redesign the airframe, thats why the J10 is a bigger aircraft. The end.

October 27, 2016 at 2:27 pm in reply to: Israel's Lavi Fighter Program #2176864

Sintra
Participant

hot air that continues to persist.
j-10 is clearly derived from the j-9

“Hot Air”?

Good old Song Wencong, fourth chap from the right…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249316[/ATTACH]

October 26, 2016 at 1:23 am in reply to: which European country will produce the next manned 5th or 6th generation fighter #2179396

Sintra
Participant

The only way that american and european aerospace industries will ever revive to make viable fighters again is to award multiple contracts and enter all aircraft into service.

plus

All the eurocanards took over 20 years to develop, all were over budget.

equates to a contradiction (ps – Check the Gripen development timeline…)

This is why Russia and China have superior development going on

They do?! Well, thats news!

is that they have multiple companies working on projects all of which will see fruition and enter service unless they turn out really bad.

And that turned out well for all those Mig´s and Yak´s heavy advanced fighter designs, and dont forget all those severall hundreds of Sukhoi S54/S55´s, Mig AT´s and Myasischev M-200 delivered to the VVS.

The F-22 would have turned out better and on budget if the F-23 were developed along side it.

Of course it would! We have an ungodly number of programs that developed two (or more) designs to fill one single mission, with both of them delivered on time, budget and on specs, dont we? Wait, we dont! Sudenly images of the LCS Freedom, the Supermarine Swift and a few others passed right in front of my eyes.

The fact that the F-35 was originally intended to be a low cost alternative to the F-22 is a joke now.

EH? The F-22 was developed to replace the Eagle, the F-35 was developed to replace an ungodly number of tatical platforms, the obvious exception being… the F-15 Eagle…

October 24, 2016 at 4:29 pm in reply to: What were the potential market for the Mirage 4000? #2181838

Sintra
Participant

The single M53 burnt more fuel in dry thrust than two M88’s do for the same power range.

?
No, the dry SFC for the M88 and M53 is 0.78 lb/lbf.h and 0.88 lb/lbf.h, the dry thrust is 11,240 lbf and 14,388 lbf.

The M53 although about 25% heavier only has a slight thrust edge over the M88’s well below a 25% difference. I believe it’s just under 15% different.

Its precisely 21%.

http://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com/military-engines/training-and-combat-aircraft/m53
http://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com/military-engines/training-and-combat-aircraft/m88

October 23, 2016 at 1:02 pm in reply to: How should India fill the rest of the gap: more Rafales, Su-30s, Tejas, or a new type #2184341

Sintra
Participant

Returning south Tibet to whom? Independant Tibet or chinese invaded Tibet?

Independent Tibet, thats an obvious one…

October 23, 2016 at 12:45 pm in reply to: which European country will produce the next manned 5th or 6th generation fighter #2184388

Sintra
Participant

Hopefully they will realize that the “meat servo” sitting in the cockpit is the weakest link and build unmanned combat airplanes.

It seems that they are precisely doing that.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249210[/ATTACH]

October 21, 2016 at 6:10 pm in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2190331

Sintra
Participant

First time I hear that.. IMHO, Gripen was finished way before BAe have stepped in..

There was a bit of BAE P106B in the Gripen. The Gripen wings were designed by BAE.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 3,443 total)

← 1 2 3 … 51 52 53 … 228 229 230 →