dark light
Airliner World
Combat Aircraft
AeroPlane
Flypast
Airforces
Aviation
Pcpilot
Air

Sign

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 1,400 total)
1 2 3 4 … 92 93 94
  • Author
    Posts
  • March 16, 2013 at 10:17 am in reply to: Rise of the 6th Generation Fighter … #2305063
    Sign
    Participant

    i wonder how oilprices will affect 6 gen designs.
    To me these drawings seems to about “buisness as usual”, but…
    In the real world, it going to be extremly expensive to fly these two turbine petrol guzzlers in a two decades. I think the requirements will change.
    i think the fighter will not be a fighter in that sence, only a weapons carrier with extreme sensors. no fun anymore 🙁

    http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/Oil_USGasolinePricesPrediction.htm

    But also, i think these designs will not be developed until 2050. F-35 will be the US platform for a long long time. it will only be refined over the years in new revisions.

    March 10, 2013 at 5:40 pm in reply to: What does JAS-39 offer over F/A-18 or F-16? #2308504
    Sign
    Participant

    Afghanistan is not a desert.

    let me refrase myself.
    Two thirds of the landscape of Afghanistan is occupied by mountainous terrains with little or no vegetation, typical of an arid country.
    about a 1/3 is desert by definition.

    March 9, 2013 at 11:34 pm in reply to: What does JAS-39 offer over F/A-18 or F-16? #2309030
    Sign
    Participant

    I am not questioning that. Sweden has shaped its defense infrastructure for such a threat, and they can make any opponent much bigger in size pay dearly…However through conventional means they can only delay the inevitable…

    if delayed for long time in guerilla warefare with high quality equipment, the aggressor will have problems to go on in the long run. They need to have extreme determination. Just look att the problems the international forces in afganistan of today have in a big desert without the means of concealing equipment and no the use of hitech equipment.

    March 9, 2013 at 10:22 pm in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2309082
    Sign
    Participant

    Swedish news reported in another thread re: Gripen development deal:

    “Modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with first deliveries toSwedenin 2018 – expected in the fourth quarter 2013 at the latest. “

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/142710/saab-signs-gripen-e-development-deal%2C-sees-%247.5-bn-sales.html

    Sounds like there will be no new builds for Swedish Air Force. I thought it had been decided that modifying Gripen C’s was not cost effective.

    its the way swedish taxpayers want to hear it. The C model is allmosed completly replaced. maybe the randome and the canopy and the stick are the pieces that remain….

    March 8, 2013 at 5:37 pm in reply to: What does JAS-39 offer over F/A-18 or F-16? #2309743
    Sign
    Participant

    The Soviets did occupy Afghanistan…That is what i meant, if they wish to destroy the Swedish air force hardware, they could do it based on attrition alone. Same with other military hardware. Sweden could mount a campaign and kick them out by guirilla tactics, but i guess we were talking in context of Fighter aircraft so i limited my argument to that aspect alone.

    The forests of sweden is extemely good in concealing military equipment. Disperst fields/big forests are very good combos with guerilla tactics..even thou, airplane are not likely to fly day 200.. they probably fly even day 30. Depending on tactics ofcourse, my opinion :diablo:

    March 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm in reply to: What does JAS-39 offer over F/A-18 or F-16? #2309762
    Sign
    Participant

    If russia decides to use all its military might to invade a european nation such as Sweden, the best bet that nation has to maximize its military assets to enflict the most damage possible to russian military and then engaging the world community to join in. If Russia decides to take over SWEDEN, there is not much ( apart from devoloping nukes and using them) sweden can do. This does not mean that sweden not develop basic deterence as they have done for ages now.

    So the afgan forces was too mighty for russians.
    The same goes for the US in Vietnam.

    March 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2310778
    Sign
    Participant

    wow!!!!!

    March 5, 2013 at 10:21 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2313154
    Sign
    Participant

    Sure, and ultracruise is the reason why the space shuttle has 3 SSMEs.

    B-1B is a hypercruiser!

    March 5, 2013 at 10:19 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2313157
    Sign
    Participant

    I dont think Norway would ever abandon F-35. ever.

    • They are so politically dependent on the US
    • And they have funds.

    The dependency is all about russian activity in the north sea, and are allways stressed about these.
    But maybe the lease some gripens to do the dirty work, and polishes there own planes in a tempered hangar 🙂

    March 5, 2013 at 5:57 pm in reply to: What does JAS-39 offer over F/A-18 or F-16? #2313415
    Sign
    Participant

    I doubt it. The Swiss eval report specifically mentions that there was no fusion between the radar and EW suite (Gripen D was it?).

    there are alot of fusion of data in gripen C, Thou EW and radar uses different screens. But…
    this is about radar fusion with other radars in a very sofisticated way. Not just tracks. All through the data link TILDS. As pointed out, one radar mode is using the radar as a gigantic EW sensor passivly and compare plots with other radars for a passive radar triangulation.

    March 4, 2013 at 9:26 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2314683
    Sign
    Participant

    Costs are going down, according to Norwegian MoD:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Ffd%2Ftema%2Fkampfly-til-forsvaret%2F–det-gar-sakte-men-sikkert-fremover.html%3Fid%3D715294

    The 52 F-35 Norway is to get is now estimated to cost 62.6 billion NOK (2013 estimate).

    Total costs for 30 years of operation was estimated to 230 billion NOK in 2012.

    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Ffd%2Ftema%2Fkampfly-til-forsvaret%2Fhva-koster-egentlig-nye-kampfly.html%3Fid%3D710435

    Thats cheaper than the Gripen N. NOT :diablo:
    Norway said that 48 JSFs would cost 18 billion kroner (NOK), about $52 million each, compared to 24 billion NOK for the same number of Gripens.
    Someone needs to get shot for this misscalculations…

    March 4, 2013 at 9:08 pm in reply to: Airbrake effectiveness #2314687
    Sign
    Participant

    Not sure if it’s the most effective configuration in the air, but it’s a neutral configuration meaning there’s no pitch force.

    Rearend brakes, balanced should be more stable,due to the aerodynamic center doesnt shift in any way, and doesnt disrupt any airflow over any controlsurface.
    the smaller size do to coming in pairs could also be better for vibrations and responsiveness.

    March 3, 2013 at 11:16 pm in reply to: Tornado in trouble or flight test? #2315409
    Sign
    Participant

    No!
    Its the Tornado Targa. For sunny days in the sky 😉

    March 3, 2013 at 9:21 am in reply to: What does JAS-39 offer over F/A-18 or F-16? #2315838
    Sign
    Participant

    This has been discussed in many places over the net, for example here or here.

    The “credibility factors” were introduced in the leaked reports. The Gripen “2015” was rated with a factor of 2, while the Rafale “2015” was rated with a factor of 8. Still, the Gripen managed to have the biggest delta from the baseline config of the 3 evaluated aircraft :diablo:

    still they choose the dam plane, so those leaked reports was only leaked for damaging the deal, therefore cherry picked for that sole purpose.
    Not credible for getting the hole picture. The low initial score was weighted with risk, for the new development i E version. Therefore, a instant picture in the early developent of E version weighed back for some reason we dont know. The picture of today is probably of the chart, due to they choose the dam plane (my speculation) 🙂

    On the subject again
    this is a nice reading on the Gripen E “hollistic approach”
    http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=1d32d33f-2d8a-4254-ba7e-7f020e980176&ID=11&Web=f4e358e9-9737-43b1-b2f9-c11c7b4ca9fa

    March 2, 2013 at 5:43 pm in reply to: What does JAS-39 offer over F/A-18 or F-16? #2316488
    Sign
    Participant

    The performance need to be optimised for medium to high altitudes, which means engines with low bypass ratio and low wingloading.

    And that is the way to build a modern combat aircraft.;)

    F-35 comes to mind in your definition.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 1,400 total)
1 2 3 4 … 92 93 94