Yes. The dog will be re-named Trigger.

Wouldn’t that be sacrificing truth? I don’t see why abusive boys (gangsters or wannabes) can use the word today and it be considered acceptable, yet it can’t be used in a technical sense or for historical accuracy? It seems to be counter logical and counter morality.

but there’s finally some truth to the story.

Though it sounds like it may have some additional truths in the remake film, it sounds like they are sacrificing a lot of truth for the sake of political correctness and sensational animation techniques.

I was very disappointed with the movie Pearl Harbor, the graphics looked pretty much like real aircraft, but they did not fly and behave like real aircraft.

Part of the reason that I like the Blue Max, the Battle of Britain, and Hells Angels is because they used real aircraft, (whether it be full scale or models) and they use war veteran advisors to try to maintain a reasonable amount of historical accuracy and realism.

Are you sure?

I thought that the trials footage was of the Highball trials in Loch Leven (?), and Highball was spherical…

Adrian

I’m not sure, but I thought some of the footage in the original film was of the dam busting bombs and hardware. I think I’ve even seen some of the same footage on documentaries about the dam busting bombs. They even showed the hardware that spun up the spherical bombs that were used on the dam busting so that the bombs would use a flywheel effect to propel themselves into the dam face even after they bounced off the dam wall.

Exactly what fighter is it that’s got a better kill ratio than the Eagle? Inquiring minds want to know.

I suspect he’s talking about in the fantasy world, you know wargames simulations, instead of the reality. 😉 The war games are speculative at best.

The way the economy is going south I question how many F-22’s we can get no matter how good they are. Congress is too busy attaching pork to so-called “bailout plans” that benefit shady organizations like ACORN (that is linked to voter fraud), or La Raza (a racist organization). I’m not sure it was in the final draft but it sure was cronyism.

Obama seems to want to do the same thing to our country that his staff did to Freddie and Fannie Mae. Obama hired corporate shills like; Jim Johnson the Fannie Mae CEO that apparently cooked the books and bankrupt the company, while giving himself a giant golden parachute of benefits. Obama is in bed with corrupt big business.

There should be congressional and criminal investigations and prosecutions of the Obama staff. Our economy is crashing because of the changes that fascist liberals bring; like corruption and cooking the books.

Sorry about going off on somewhat of a tangent

Did you see that area-ruled droptank for the F-35 on wiki? That thing seems dropable with the pylon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F35ctolstores.jpg
(That graphics is not complete, e.g. NSM is missing for internal carriage).

I don’t know, I’m just guessing. I would suspect of course the tanks are droppable, however the pylon does not seem to look like it drops with the tank. It looks like there is a pylon platform/extension from the tank to the pylon. It is probably shaped that way to be more aerodynamic and stealthy. I suspect the pylon itself stays on the aircraft.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you’re trying to say.

As I asked wrightwing, did you ever wondered if internal carriage of extra fuel and weapons gave ANY advantage to a fighter, why not incorporated in earlier fighters?????? Like F-15s or F-16s.
Could it be that the overall advantages are less than the overall shortcomings? Sleep on that.

I doubt he would lose any sleep on that, unlike you. It’s pretty obvious why. Previously not much attention was given to stealth for many reasons. Radar stealth was considered somewhat of a secret. Early radar was extremely limited. Our ability to mathematically model stealth was limited due to our knowledge and computer speed/capacity.

However it was incorporated on the YF-12 were stealth and low drag were critical and it was reasonable to assume that the likelihood of the technology being lost to hostile fire was low.

Lol, there’re not copying the F-22 and F-35, their not copying at all. They are simply implemeting a new, now understood technology;stealth.

You need to work on your reading and intellectual comprehension.

With your reply you changed the context of what I was saying. Though I still disagree with what you say. The technology is being copied, whether you honest enough to admit it or not. That does not mean that the aircraft will be identical, what that means is that they are benefiting from the trail blazing technology of the SR-71, F-117, B-2, F-22, and JSF.

It’s not like I expect exact copies like when the Soviet Union copied the B-29 or the atom bomb.

In the case of the stealth proposed aircraft I have seen it looks like there is much obvious similarities. Remember that things don’t have to be identical to have benefited from previous technology or to be copies. Glenn Curtiss copied idea of turning by changing the airflow over the wings to turn from the Wright brothers. Glenn Curtiss benefited from the wing warping technology from the Wright brothers. The end product of ailerons looked much different, largely because it was an improved design using a different method and it was a way to try to avoid patent infringement.

Admit it, we all often copy/benefit from other’s technology. That’s how we have become a technologically advanced world. Our knowledge and technology is most often like a ladder, advances are most commonly made on top of other preceding advances. It is very seldom that new technology arrives from a vacuum. Technology has a tendency to move forward in steps whether it be small steps or giant leaps. Technology advancement is often much like a relay race in some ways: the torch is often passed between many players and countries

Since you’re talking about nukes, I thought I’d point out that there was a proposal to modify the U-2 to possibly carry a nuclear anti-ship missile.

Lockheed, ever hopeful of an enlarged U-2 program, also proposed the 315B design, a two-seat variant that would carry Condor anti-ship missiles under its wings. Development of the Condor missile-which was to have carried a conventional or W73 nuclear warhead-was canceled before becoming operational. Yet another “payload” envisioned for U-2s in this period was a pair of drones that would be released to serve as decoys for missiles fired against the U-2.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2001/0201spyplane.asp

Sorry, I think you are a little late to the game. As Lockheed Martin , Rand Corp, and the USAF. Have claim the story to totally false………….The main problem with the F-35 is its a threat to any other fighter program except the soon to be closed F-22 line. So, what is the rest of the world to say. Don’t buy our product buy the Lightning………..While, I personally don’t like the Lightning bashing. I can understand it.:(

A late in the game? Perhaps. The article is only three days old and I was having some fun with it because though I question whether the claim is true it is certainly more plausible than that piece of trash that was being used to bash the JSF by the Aussie rag.

The Rand release was on September 25, 2008
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/index.html

The link I just posted. was on September 29, 2008
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/29/316555/war-game-argues-that-usaf-fleet-could-be-outmatched-by.html

As I said originally. If this was a highly classified war game, then how did they learn of it, and why is it being posted publicly? It seems that this is just a game played by the journalists with a political or and financial motive. I think it is meant to undermine the trust in the joint strike fighter and to try to renegotiate the terms of the contracts to try to barter for more domestic manufacturing and code writes for their perspective countries, or and to lobby for their own indigenous aircraft.

As I said originally if there was any such classified wargames it’s doubtful that the information would be so public. If there was such wargames a loss would mean nothing if not knowing the conditions/scenarios/ROE to put the loss in perspective. As I said before such wargames are usually conducted in such a way that it gives the opponent a significant advantage, such as superior numbers. So in order to put a loss into perspective all of the parameters would have to be known; otherwise it is totally useless.

So Australia, Britain, Italy, Canada, The Netherlands, Turkey, Norway, Denmark, Israel and Singapore after almost 50 years of procuring US aircraft is just going to buy Su-27s?

Just because they ended up buying aircraft from the US does it mean that they didn’t buy or court aircraft from other countries.

For example didn’t Israel operate some Dassault aircraft like the Mirage IIIC?

As others have indicated it seems that some of the partners are just kicking up dirt trying to renegotiate their deal to gain more rights or to gain more of the manufacturing piece of pie or to promote their own indigenous programs. Competitors are also kicking up dust trying to promote their products by bashing the F-22 and joint strike fighter. It’s largely politics and propaganda.

The people may be whining, but they are putting their money on the joint strike fighter. Sure there is a possibility it could be a lemon, it also possibly could be phenomenal. However I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between, probably on the higher side; but well worth the money.

I find all this argument ridiculous anyway because most of the specifications on many of these aircraft that are being compared our unknown or speculative at best.

Did you read the story you linked to?

The scenario suggested that no F-22 got shot down but rather some of the 72 SU-27 managed to “get through” and shoot down the F-22 tanker.

Nobody said F-22 was inferior. However even the F-22 needs fuel. And even the F-22 can be outnumbered.

L

Do you not understand my post or the article? Do I have to spoon feed you? You don’t have to kill an aircraft directly to kill an aircraft. Kill the tanker and in some scenarios you kill the fighters by doing so.

LOL, what *many countries*? Russia and China, that is two.

Just a few more, to further humiliate you. Babble on.

(supposedly, cough cough) Japan to develop stealth fighter jets
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/11/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Fighter-Jets.php

The Korea Aerospace Industries KFX is South Korea’s project to develop an indigenous stealth fighter aircraft for the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF).
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57825

Funny thing is that those 72 Sukhois are probably cheaper to procure than six Raptors. 😉

What about infrastructure/support? How much do you think that it would cost to support 72 Sukhois? How many tankers and crews would take for 72 Sukhois? Does China even have enough tankers to support 72 Sukhois and maintain readiness?

Do you think it would be easier to spot a build up of six F-22’s or of seventy two Sukhois? Do you think that 72 Sukhois would have much of a chance of being able to sneak up on six raptors? I think not.

Remember that the scenario that they use for this war game isn’t necessarily the tactics that would be used in real life. The raptors and tankers could just run and selectively pick off the Sukhois as needed until the Sukhois ran out of fuel.