dark light

Sign

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 1,400 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2377630
    Sign
    Participant

    As i heard even thou the lowest bidder wins, the bid can be too high (over budget) and therefore skrapped. right? or am i delirious?

    in reply to: Financial stealth #2379659
    Sign
    Participant

    Capitalism isnt the problem, its the position the companys have, the shortsighted owners and the way the goverment doing buisness.
    If a company doesnt manage to hold a budget, why believe it can manage the next project?
    Go abroad, make em suffer.
    Build the the sourcing on true competiveness, and work longterm with the Contractor so the know they suffer with dumbt pricing etc. This means also less on politics, for better fairness between contractors.

    If it pays off to manupulate a customer, capitalism will do that, due to the shortterm thinking.

    in reply to: Boeing and USN offer advance super hornet to Japan #2308181
    Sign
    Participant

    F-X is a F-4 replacement, not F-15. It is the F-XX program that is to replace the F-15s.

    oops, my bad. Then F-35 probably fit in a couple of years. i wonder why Rafale or Gripen NG isnt in this competion. Anyone know?

    in reply to: Boeing and USN offer advance super hornet to Japan #2308219
    Sign
    Participant

    Why cant people see the difference in different A/C?
    Is Dreamliner better than 737-900ER? No..depends on the route and costumer.

    F-X is a F-15 replacer, F-35 isnt that A/C, F-22/PAKFA/Eurofighter/Rafale is.
    F-18 can probably still manage it, but its not in the same league as even an old F-15 in some ways.
    I thought they should had offered F-15 Silent Eagle!

    in reply to: F-35C Lightning II – 2011 #2312273
    Sign
    Participant

    Let’s just say BOTH X-35 and 32 will look a lot better than they were if the marines hadn’t insisted on VTOL.

    i like

    in reply to: Close Air Support – debate in US #2314059
    Sign
    Participant

    Gunship C295 with a side firing 30M791 canon and 7,62 gatling gun. Add 3 AASM on a multiple rack on one side and a bunch (6-8?) of brimstones under the other wing. A very good optronics suite, Link 16, Rover, and one or two onboard FACs in direct contact with the troops and the command & control center.

    If there is enough room you could even fit a UCAV operator to assist in case of very complex missions

    Nic

    i like your idea, but what is the alternative for even smaller craft? i think it would be better economy, but less range/ordinance and endurance.

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2321439
    Sign
    Participant

    you just have to look at the Boeing Bird of Prey (and the bevy of LM UCAV designs over the past decade) to get an idea of how important shaping still is to LO designs.

    right now isnt the future 😉

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2323899
    Sign
    Participant

    @ Sign : Well mate the goal here is not to preach and convert… You were given an opinion of why some here think it’s possible, the rest of the world also seems to think it’s possible (F22,F35, PAK-FA, J-20, India, Japan, even south corea has a programme for a stealth fighter I think, Europe…), now you are entitled to your faith…
    .

    I wonder if people read my posts or are just that black and white..
    I didnt debate all 5 gen of a/c i right or wrong. Maybe more looking at the downsides and speculate on 6 and 7 gen fighter will have less stealth shaping and rely more on new materials.

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2324021
    Sign
    Participant

    Google RQ-170. Then return here and explain how its stealthy design makes it an aerodynamic disaster. :diablo:

    i never in my life said disaster.

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2324695
    Sign
    Participant

    well, noone can convince me of the fantastic aerodynamic benefits of stealth shapeing.

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2326919
    Sign
    Participant

    Are you sure youre not payed? 😉
    Nice chating with you, i think we solved it 😉 i will not respond further in this matter.

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2327036
    Sign
    Participant

    Please LM, we all friends here..
    I still like my standpoint and you do youres. thats ok.
    Right now i dont we could settle for “one truth”. Lets agree on that. 😎

    Complexity is one term you refer to.
    This terms can be adding an extra requirement dimension to the table.
    Requirements often counteract eachother.
    Thats why, if you only have one “simple” task for a system it can be extremly good at it.
    For example, if you design only for top speed it can easily hit mach 5-6. Like the X-15.
    If you add more requirements on top of that it will get more and more complex and speed WILL sooner ore later deteriorate.

    Look at the F-35A and B. because of the VTOL requirement the combat range have to degrade about 25% from 600nm to 450nm.
    That the penalty for making it more complex and adding contraproductive requirements.

    Its like making a Sportcar with truckloading capability, it will never happen! Its not doable in the real world! period!
    You cant convince me otherwise.
    So there you have it, take it or leave it.

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2328215
    Sign
    Participant

    Firstly Sign, I am not here to argue with you mate, as I know what I am talking about.
    I’d also like to point out that adding a bay doesn’t exponentially increase drag – I wonder do you know what exponentially means? Also I have no idea what you mean by F-117>F-22??….
    .

    I have read youre previous posts, and i see your point. But you kind of missing mine.
    Stealth forms make you suffer in design freedom, to make craft for best speed, and agility. Thats all. With that, it means a modern F-15 would have better TWR( even more f-22) and less drag than F-22.
    Aerodesigns does not like straight lines as much as a stealth designer likes em. And they does not get the “last say” in all project as you imply, normaly you set some systemspec. before the get in, like engine size and radar area, but body layout works in parallell after that..
    Also TWR does not apply that much in high speed, and does not reflect aerodynamic drag.

    So, one day in the future a less shaped craft with better materials instead shape, will be the winner in the sky. that my 5 cents. Take it or leave it 🙂

    F-117 rely on body shape more than good materials for stealth. F-22 is more of a hybrid of better materials and less shapeing. Do you get the point of what history tells you of the future to come?

    Ps. Normal designs also have design requirements that relates to economics like LCC cost. That does not seem to apply to F-22..so you cant just add more power in normal cases to counter drag/weight.

    in reply to: MMRCA News and Discussion 8 #2330658
    Sign
    Participant

    Ok . Where would you try to fit AESA conformal arrays on the actual Typhoon ?
    … :confused:

    Cheers .

    this is the stuff we solve in an internet thread 😀
    i think they will try to fit it ON the plane itself.

    in reply to: When did Europe awaken to Stealth? #2331528
    Sign
    Participant

    LM raptor, Look
    If you build a fighter with radarrreflection shaping as the main requirement.
    aerodynamic drag and turnefficiency will suffer, thats a fact.
    If you build a belly with big crosssection there will be exponential more drag. even if you add som stores under the wings that dont add as much as adding a big storage box in the same crosssection as the mainbody.

    IF you can build a stealthfighter with materials only in the future that will give “back” the aerodynamic freedom that was lost. and that is probably the way it goes..
    just look at F-117>F-22

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 1,400 total)