i.e.AW&ST’s latest write-up on J-20:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/
…the comments section is now mentioning a sentiment that has been doing the rounds in other fora, namely that the J-20 is the losing contender for the PAK-FA and was exported to China!
uhhhh….
I was just reading the same thing.
when will they ever wise up. :rolleyes:
i.e.Stealth jet team proves its metal
Stephen Chen
Jan 15, 2011 SCMP.comMetallurgist Shi Changxu won a top national science award yesterday for his contribution to the development of high-performance jet engines – three days after the ….
good article.
(OT:)
which is another seconardy confirmation that the story that HJT didn’t know about the first flight and was surprised to learn from Gates is pretty much hogwash.
HJT signed and final approved the “top national science award” a week in advance of giving this out.
at this point I would really worried about pentagon’s intel ability. the intel estimates which fed into the now entranched “chinese civil-mil leadership split ” model is completely off the mark. this is worrisome, from a perspective of gross mis-estimation on part of US.
i.e.It seems it comfortably out accelerates F-16 chase planes even when loaded with 4,000Ib’s of JDAMs and two AMRAAM’s.
Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up.”
yeah it would be interesting to see what part of the flight regime this comparison was made.
I suspect this was a level accel from low subsonic to mid/high subsonic.
supersonic wise turbojet and low by pass fan rule the day. F-135’s bypass is just too big.
i.e.Yes the entire leadership of USAF, Pentagon, and the defence contractors are wrong and you are right.
:rolleyes:
Dreams of grandeur.Attack planes dropping bomb is not important, instead its important to achieve Air to Air superiority against Soviets (In case you did not notice, there is no threat to US military achieving air supremacy in a conflict left in this world).
Yes rest of the stuff i said is fluff: like B-2 is a bomber that will never fit in the role of the F-35.
Meet Ignore button, good bye that is….
as snafu pointed out earlier. my point was is and always directed towards europe, sticking to the title of this thread.
not USAF, not pentagon.
you need to learn to how to read.:rolleyes:
i.e.insomnia…if he had been talking about the US, USAF etc. you would be somewhat correct…
However he was talking about Europe.
So you are either not understanding the point he is making or just completely wrong.
thanks snafu.
😉
people here need to learn how to read first.
i.e.-the USAF went for the A model for a variety of reasons- cost(they could get a lot more A’s for the same amount of money, as C’s), performance(though all 3 will reach M1.6 with internal load, and likely faster at lighter weights)- the A does have the quickest acceleration and highest G rating, but the C actually turns better in parts of the envelope.
I am not talking about Cs. I am talking about a bigger wing like C’s
which would give them the good turn performance and if your motor is big enough reach your top speed and level accelerate good enough. also bigger wing = bigger room for fuel = range.
Seems to me A’s wing is built to hit a USAF a/c performance target which Cs big wings can’t meet. which means somethingelse has to give.
i.e.yep, and i was pretty impressed then. Took that figure for granted I admit. Anyone has better source on static margin for the EF?
no, not yet. I am still scouring literatures. I find brochures highly…
my gut still highly doubt that’s their normal configuration, may be what they claim is that their FCS may tolerate a -35% static margin due to fuel and external loads imbalance… total speculation on my part.
i.e.i’m sure the swedes love you too!
of course one may ask, should a light fighter be made stealthy like that?
some argue that either you go medium-large or none at all simply because a light fighter won’t do any penetration into foreign air spaces.
I hope they do especially the girls :diablo:
imho, yeah that is gripen’s one weakness, too small.
original Gripen requirement was built around a domestic engine. anything bigger would have them build it around a F-100/F110 core which is essentially an improved F-16 (nothing wrong with that).
smaller fighters are naturally handicaped at range. (tigershark was a extremely good but it couldn’t stay up more than an hour) even for airdefence you need some legs.
I hope as the evolution goes the sensible thing for gripen folks is to scale this into a F-35 or even a euro canard sized jet. would love to see a a F-135 class powered. canarded stealth fighter, just like a baby brother for J-20 😀
i.e.-10% for a static margin isn’t all that fantastic. The EF is said to have -35% subsonic, neutral around Mach 1.4.
ah, you got that on that F-16.net thread ah? 😉
i.e.Seems like only Saab has put some serious efforts in a manned 5th gen fighter development
in the form of the Saab FS2020 Fenix
they even built a small rc model of it
I love swedes! they are so independent on military aviation. 😀
love to see that thing going into fruition and sell to half a dozen airforces. and to see it at a tiger meet or red flag, out pacing F-35s :diablo:
i.e.Those are 2 different questions. In answer to the first one, I don’t think that in most situations the F-35 pilot would jettison stores, but obviously it only takes one example of it occurring, to refute that it would never happen. The F-35 is allegedly as agile in that condition as a clean F-16. Another option would be fuel dumping, which the F-35 can do very rapidly, to lose weight, without being mission killed. To answer the second question, obviously an empty F-35 at half fuel would have better performance, than at full weight. The point though is in how it compares to other aircraft carrying combat loads.
valid reply. 😀
second question is integrally connected to the first question.
if F-35 would dump ordinance anyways, I do not think the extra drag pentalty you allege the “external stores drag” to have matters any more in an a2a scenario. and infact even may cut against F-35.
fuel dumping means giving up persistence.
alleged is a key word.
and USAF didn’t choose the smaller winged F-35A for no reason you know?
after all if they have all the thrust they need from F-135 why don’t they just go for for the bigger wing?
they want to hit a higher top speed with A2A load than F-35C. you understand that a smaller wing would typically mean for drag polar as your load goes up right? and as gs are pulled? :rolleyes:
In my humble opinion an A2G F-35A’s drag polar will not be a as steller as some think going up against a similarly configured F-16.
and if manuever with stores are take into account then we need to take at look at some hard numbers.
the saving grace for 35, imho is that big F-135 motor. in subsonic regime that motor gives F35 win over F-16 in level accel which I believe can happen.
but big motor is not the whole story. :rolleyes:
i.e. Mercurius :
But what the amateur does not have is the ability to question company specialists, or the understanding of the real world that comes as a result of visits to factories, laboratories, and military bases and exercises. Nor are they able to attend conferences and symposia where defence matters are discussed, often at a deeper level than in more open sources.
”
I disagree with this part.
there some of professional in this field who have both the experties and the curiousity to explore other programs. now they might not have opportunity hobnob with policy makers and think tankers etc. but they do have extensive contacts with boots on the ground… the actual experties and program experience. how many journalist today have that?
we see that partly in chinese amature online forums, where they all know certain id has certain background and a tacid wink and one liner would be authoritative enough to be understood as a leak. now how reliable this is the question. and again as you mentioned it is a signal to noise problem.
i.e.-10% for a static margin isn’t all that fantastic. The EF is said to have -35% subsonic, neutral around Mach 1.4.
I am talking about transonic/high subsonic number.
i.e.So J-20 is about neutral ?
I don’t know,
but If I were to put a bet, somewhere btw 8-10% negative.
i.e.ok, so unless there is any new non-f35 based debate i guess the conclusion is that until one of the euro-canard manufacturers breaks ranks and updates their current model, the emphasis will be on using superior sensors and networking, staying passive and relying on Meteor…
does anyone have any further information on what a Typhoon 2020 is, whether the Gripen NG offers any RCS inmprovements and whether the French are likely to fund a remodelled Rafale?
I offer my two cents here:
for a2g, interdiction, SEAD missions, the trend will go more and more to UCAVs.
for simple bomb hualing, europe already has several good platforms (Typhoon, Rafale, F-16) for the magnitude of the expected tasks.
once F-35 buys are set in concrete,
the real weakness for europe is now that for A2A/Air superiority/Air defence intercept tasks, its primary platforms are either technologically behind of what’s out there (4.5 gen typhoon/rafale) , or potentially lacking in raw performance. (F-35). vs the heavies (F-22/PAKFA)
so it is paramount that europe must man up and develope a 5/6 gen stealth fighter oriented towards a2a instead of a2g. it doesn’t have to be in the class of F-22/PAKFA, a super hornet size with next gen of mid thrust engine (T/W =10) would do, but focus on a2a with secondary task in a2g. emphasize air 2 air performance,(as most of big export markets would first fill its a2a requirement first anyways). and competitiveness vs PAKFA/F-22/J-20 should do fine.
UCAV of next gen would not likely be a a2a oriented. imho as com bandwidth and artificial intelligence is not there yet. so the need for manned fighter would still be there in a2a.
Europe must make sure its top dog is as competitive. without it rest of your assets are just sheeps for wolfs.
that’s my humble opinion.
Sign In
