dark light

Sign

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,400 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2340234
    Sign
    Participant

    You are very mistaken….

    no, im not? Read again and try to understand english.

    in reply to: HELLENIC AIR FORCE NEWS & DISCUSSION #2340461
    Sign
    Participant

    A Christmas HAF :)….

    nice camo! lets hope it sticks in flight πŸ™‚

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2340464
    Sign
    Participant

    The F 18 E/F is a totally different aircraft and some of the new age Eurocanards flew well before the first SUper Hornet prototype.

    Do you not see the recemblance? Alot have been done but still the same type fighter no 18. The flight envelope and aroedynamics basics isnt that different.
    F-16 and F-35 are two totally different A/C.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2340743
    Sign
    Participant

    If, you are referring to the Super Hornet. It is a totally New Design and shares no Major Components with the similar looking F/A-18A-D Hornet.

    You could probably Mig 21 bison to a 4.5 gen system πŸ™‚
    But whats the point? Its flightenvelope will still be same.
    F-18 will have the same flaws for being original designed for 20 years ago. Long before even cad was used in the designface..

    in reply to: what aircraft can be considered over engineered? #2342392
    Sign
    Participant

    thinking upon Msphere’s claims that the Merlin is over-engineered as a transport, with more systems than it needs.
    what others?

    perhaps the Su-39? giving it the ability to shoot R-77 and anti ship missiles in an airframe that was not meant for that role.

    over engineered should be balance between preformance/price and preformance/weight (to many systems for its own good)

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2342586
    Sign
    Participant

    If India does partner with SAAB for the AMCA, it might offer interesting possibilities- Sweden could offer to purchase 2 squadrons of AMCA fighters in the 2025-2030 timeframe in return for the MRCA purchase.

    It could do several things – reduce unit price, give Sweden a true 5th gen fighter that it has co-developed and allow it to partner in the sale of the fighter to other nations and build sub-assemblies and parts for the entire production run of the fighter. After all, in the 2020s it will be hard to sell the Gripen NG which isn’t shaped for stealth, all other things being equal thanks to upgrades or evolving technology insertions.

    And India gains a partner who co-develops certain technologies and brings its integration expertise in as well and crucially, doesn’t have a side agenda like the sale of its own fighters, something that the US and Russia will definitely have.

    I really like the idea, but think SweAF is most interested in a canard/delta variant like this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAkXNhDH5vE
    or
    http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/07/16/indonesia-e-coreia-do-sul-juntas-no-programa-de-caca-de-45%C2%AA-geracao/

    This is in the timeframe beyond 2025..
    But they can probably change its mind if they got good partner like india.

    And it would be a great if Volvo Aero team up with GTRE for the engine!

    Other intresting partners would be S Korea and Japan!

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2343120
    Sign
    Participant

    Sorry, the US is by far the Leader in that Department.

    πŸ™‚ Funny guy πŸ˜€
    no F-18 and f-16 arent, and even those havent got any good ToT

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2343683
    Sign
    Participant

    Welcome to Scooter’s Bizzaro-World! Where the Americans Always Win!:p

    Good natured needling of Scooter aside, I was pretty certain that the Rafale was preferred by the Dilma’s predecessor, and that the Gripen NG was preferred by many in the industry due to ToT and offsets. The Super Hornet seems to be very much an outside chance.

    As for the MMRCA, it may be more likely, but I’ve also heard that the Eurofighter probably leads there.

    Have things changed?

    i was only looking for any new sources, or any thougthful analysis πŸ˜‰ but as always, none πŸ˜€

    in reply to: What Makes Euro-canards better than Russian fighters? #2344799
    Sign
    Participant

    Found it:

    http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/

    Of course Saab could get the EPE, but they have to fund it first, which makes the Gripen more costly again.

    Btw:

    http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2007/070702_GEengine.htm

    If you take this and calculate the TWR with those figures from the blog, Gripen NG comes down to 0.87 only.

    Yes its all depends on which engine a customer choose.
    Saab dont fund the Engine integration, GE does (as a risksharer in the gripen Demo program).
    If a customer require 0.87 TWR than they come cheaper. But i dont think any of the costumers in the pipe have such a reqiurement. Do you? Maybe Bulgaria?

    This is of topic, i stop here.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2344807
    Sign
    Participant
    in reply to: What Makes Euro-canards better than Russian fighters? #2344811
    Sign
    Participant

    If we compare their respective TWRΒ΄s itΒ΄s quite spectacular.
    .

    The TVC reduce transonic trimdrag very much!
    This is one of the things that makes f-22 that good in supersonic and transonic region.

    in reply to: What Makes Euro-canards better than Russian fighters? #2344814
    Sign
    Participant

    Saw that figure on a Gripen fan site before and I think they took the 117kN of the GE 414 EPE into account and not only the 98kN of the 414G. πŸ˜‰

    well i didnt look into the source that well. πŸ˜‰
    but the F414G thust isnt specifide, only at least 98kN.
    Its up to each customer define there needs and price, GE would not mind selling its latest EPE variant πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: What Makes Euro-canards better than Russian fighters? #2344891
    Sign
    Participant

    Here are some more no to debate:
    Thrust to weight ratio (Thrust in kg/Full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg + 4*BVR, 2*WVR ~1000 kg)

    F-16 C (13147/3160 + 8270 + ~1000):1.02
    Typhoon (9185*2/5000 + 11000 + ~1000): 1.08
    Rafale (7652*2/4600 + 9500 + ~1000): 1.01
    Gripen NG (11975/3150 + 7100 + ~1000): 1.06
    F-15J (10809*2/5260 + 12700 + ~1000): 1.1

    Can anyone get any realistic SU-30 data?

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 6 #2344897
    Sign
    Participant

    Sounding more and more like the Super Hornet may pull out both the MMRCA and FX2.:diablo:

    what makes you get that idea? F-X2 seems really slim, and MMRCA seems to me longer shot than both F-16 and Gripen, and maybe even Rafale. ToT and size is probably its biggest downfalls.

    in reply to: Rafales for Brasil #4, Cachorro-quente! #2347846
    Sign
    Participant

    Mirage 2000-9 and F16 block 60 are IMHO almost as far as both plane could go to in terms of development before needing major structural and design modifation.
    Their performances are BTW very respectable considering you have to cope with old design and lack of space for electronics.

    electronics are not a problem today. If youre requirements are to keep them light and compact, you fix it. If you have the storage, you dont need to keep em compact, and then you dont.
    This was only a problem in the third gen fighters, packed with lots of analog HW.
    the things thats hard to upgrade for a 2000 is flight envelope, structural weight/payload, engine and RCS.

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,400 total)