dark light

Sintra

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 3,443 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2141616
    Sintra
    Participant

    out of curiosity: whats up with US hardon for pissing away money on israel ?

    And Egipt. Its a very long story, but its one of results of Camp David agreements in 1977.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2141624
    Sintra
    Participant

    Israel is going to ink contracts for more F-35A´s and … Strike Eagles. Interesting times ahead.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-adds-f-15-to-38-billion-military-aid-package-for-429362/

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2142455
    Sintra
    Participant

    There’s plenty of evidence of them hacking and spying on stealth technology. The quad tail-fin is also a fairly distinct feature of the 1.44.

    And the wings are an obvious and distinct feature of the Wright Flyer.
    That the Chinese have went after every military technological know how by buying, cooperating, hacking, spying, etc, its not exactly news, so have every other military power on earth:
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]248163[/ATTACH]

    That doesnt mean that the J-20 was developed anywhere other than in China, its telling that even with the spying, the hacking, whatever, the Chinese have chosen a very diferent platform by comparison with what the US and Russia are developing.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2142546
    Sintra
    Participant

    i cant for the life of me figure out what ONG is an abbreviation for ?
    https://www.google.com/search?q=ONG&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b#q=ong+meaning

    Blimey, sorry!
    Its an abreviation for non-governmental organization (NGO)… in Portuguese… We normaly use that abreviation for NGO´s with a strong humanitarian emphasis.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2142550
    Sintra
    Participant

    Mig 1.44 platform

    Raptor wings

    F-35 nose and air intakes.

    Russian engines.

    Oh, look it even has wings like the Wright Flyer! 🙂
    Linking the Mig1.44 to the J-20 based on looks at this stage is has honest has linking the Hornet to the Mig-29 in the late eighties.
    Unlike the Z-10 (or even the J10) there´s absolutely no public evidence that there was a foreign design used has a base.
    And mocking Russia using the J-20 is stupid, agreed, so is stating that the J-20 is “produced” in China but was not designed and developed there.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2143930
    Sintra
    Participant

    There’s spying to find out what an enemy is doing and gain the upper hand, then there’s spying just to duplicate something. But I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    And the J20 is “duplicate” of what? The BAE EAP?

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2143937
    Sintra
    Participant

    Well if you want full credit for something, it’s a little difficult when you’ve been hacking and spying. Only recently they were caught trying to steal F135 engine design information.

    If you were the first then nobody can accuse you of copying.

    For christ sake, the NSA, the CIA, the MI6, etc, are a group of ONG’s, right?

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2144022
    Sintra
    Participant

    Why do they need to use espionage then?

    Because no one else do that?

    in reply to: If you had to choose between Rafale or F-35 #2144418
    Sintra
    Participant

    As I’ve no need for a fighter aircraft in my commute, I’ll stick with my Honda Accord… Better gas mileage.

    I myself am looking to a Mazda 3, a Ford Focus or an Opel Astra, the FIAT Punto is getting too small, those three are much better than a JSF or a Rafale for carrying the groceries and the kid…

    in reply to: dedicated CAS planes dead? #2146442
    Sintra
    Participant

    problem is it is too slow. by the time it arrives, either out of gas or the enemies left.

    Why do people write without checking the basic facts with Google?
    The dam thing is much faster than the likes of the A-10 and SU-25, with a ATG combat load it will fly at the same bracket speeds that a Tornado would use, and its combat Radii its comparable to a Hornet and bigger than the one of the Froogfoot.
    The thing was striking Serbian SAM sites with PGM´s in 1999 without Growler backup, and from them on, it was used in combat conditions for a decade and a half. Its combat record is impressive, the thing is that it was used by the AMI and no one else but the italians reads… italian, had it been used by the likes of the RAF, the RAAF or the USAF and there would have been written endless books and articles in English on how good it is.

    An old article (in English) about its combat debut.
    https://theaviationist.com/special-reports/ghibli-italys-amx/

    in reply to: General Discussion #263002
    Sintra
    Participant

    There are good tradecraft reasons why KGB and GRU personnel would have used a Soviet camera – they would be able to get special high-performance lenses that would provide sharper and more detailed imaged images than were available from the standard product.

    “Off Topic Alert” (want to keep reading about aviation? 🙂 skip this post)
    The KGB photo cameras were famous for some pretty wild designs (things like the “through-the-wall” Lenocks were…strange), but if we are talking about the sixties and seventies, the Soviet or the East Geman industry would be hard pressed to build something that could rival a Hasselblad or Rollei with a high end (Western, not the “Jena” type) Carl Zeiss prime lens and a Kodachrome 25 in terms of “sharpness”.

    For all practical purposes the West has not has a camera industry since the mid-1960s, so any Western visitor to MAKS (whether ‘spook’ or bona fide) is likely to have a Japanese camera. Using a Leica (the sole surviving German brand) would make one a bit conspicuous or even suspicious. Personally, I’m known for having carried a pre-war Zeiss Contax II at shows, but I wasn’t trying to look inconspicuous.

    A Contax II?! And i thought that my three decades Nikon FM was decidedly “old fashioned”! 🙂

    Cheers (and sorry i am going to keep the DAVE, Phoon and Flanker diet for the next few posts)

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2147220
    Sintra
    Participant

    The US left the ASRAAM program because it was not considered sufficient against the R-73.

    The reason why the US left the ASRAAM was because “it was not invented here” problem, nothing to do the R-73. The MOU signed between the UK, Germany and the US was under fire from the likes of Raytheon, Hughes, etc, from day one, they were entirely aware that the next SRAAM that would equip the USAF, the US Navy and the Marine Corps, would a) be a huge program, b) be the “de facto” SRAAM for a great big chunk of the Western Air Forces, no way in hell that they would allow a foreign contractor to be the lead developer for such a program, and they were entirely correct. By 1989, when the Luftwaffe got its hands on the “Archer” the entire MOU was already dead in all but name.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2147890
    Sintra
    Participant

    https://web.archive.org/web/20131031225846/http://warfare.be/db/catid/255/linkid/2280/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Specifications_.28T-50.29

    Those two links are highly solid, loved the bit about “Crew 1 and 2 (pilot)”, or “Armament – Guns 2× 30 mm internal cannon”, nevermind “Ferry range 5,500 km (3,400 mi)” and the absolutely fabulous “- supersonic 2500” (thats 2500 km´s for supersonic range…). Those links are utter rubish.
    There´s no data on things like weight of the dam thing, nevermind the amount of internal fuel or its range. We wont see any solid, confirmed data for atleast a decade.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2150379
    Sintra
    Participant

    Range of flight 2,200 km – the official information from Lockheed. Really can be smaller – 1,850 km.
    Maximum take-off weight of F-35A with external fuel tanks 31750 kg. internal fuel 8382 kg. The relative weight of 8382 kg Fuel: 31750 = 0.26

    Actually the range of the F-35A is being quoted since the beggining of times has “>2200 km´s”.
    It has by far and wide the biggest fuel fraction of every jet fighter in use, the most recent engine, its the size/weight of a Tornado GR4 and it has less range than a A-4 Skyhawk… Right.
    Lets put this way, if you were correct (and you are certainly not) the aircraft that was designed in order to respond to the Naval Staff Requirement NA.39 while weighting around the same, carry less fuel, would double (if we acept those 1,850 km) the F-35A range. Naval Staff Requirement NA.39 was issued by the Royal Navy in… 1952, the result was the Blackburn Buccaneer.
    You are way off.

    in reply to: Yeager says F-22 and the F-35 are a waste of money #2151410
    Sintra
    Participant

    While PAKFA is longer, it also have bigger wing area aka more friction, i just dont see how it can get 5600 km range

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]247939[/ATTACH]

    I´ll get me hat

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 3,443 total)