dark light

Sign

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 781 through 795 (of 1,400 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafales for Brasil #3, Cachorro-quente! #2388477
    Sign
    Participant

    @Loke

    As for independence, if it really is the focus, Rafale won.

    Good day all.

    a independence from (20%) US,20% UK, Sweden, a total dependance to france.
    Dont forget the other big deals.

    in reply to: Modern fighters combat radius; #2388493
    Sign
    Participant

    I’m looking for cold hard fact from official sources. Official releases (manufacturer or air force). I’ll add them to the original post as they come.

    Nic

    I found all the data on NG from saab slides(page 6).
    http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf

    the new 1000km (450gal) tank
    page 6
    http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab_OfferGripenNG_170409.pdf

    the gripen C data is harder to find in original. Can anybody else?

    Theres a lot of data lying around in:

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1
    but i not been able to find it

    in reply to: Yet another F-35 thread #2388578
    Sign
    Participant

    So you have it in writing from the Russians that the production version will retain all those things from this first flying prototype that increase RCS?

    The final version will most likely be quite different from this first prototype.

    especially the outer skin…ram, sensors etc.

    I think the russians are of the practical nature, and will do numerus iterations.
    At this moment, the outer form that interact with strucural stealth/strength, aero, flightenvelope, will be the things under development.

    The design goal seems high at the moment, but will probably decrease throu the itrations.

    Sign
    Participant

    As for calling the Eurofighter the ugliest aircraft, I have to strongly disagree:

    The Tornado isn’t a eurocanard, seeing as it lacks any canards, but personally I still love it as well. Precisely for the reason you mentioned, it looks like a flying tank, which is totally badass (same with the Mig-31). 🙂

    its like saying a pimped Humvee is cute.
    Its badass, but not beatiful in any sense, as this thead is all about.

    in reply to: Modern fighters combat radius; #2388617
    Sign
    Participant

    All 3 EFTs, you can bet ! :diablo:

    if you look a little deeper you see the following

    “Combat radius (incl 30
    min on station)
    Ex. 4 RR + 2 IR + 1 ext fuel 1300km”

    At the moment of presentation i think only one tank existed, the 1100L one. the 1740L isnt operational? am i right?

    in reply to: Rafales for Brasil #3, Cachorro-quente! #2388633
    Sign
    Participant

    It seems you take it for granted that both companies pay bribes. I may be wrong of course but as said before I think the situation has improved the last few years, and that bribes are no longer the “standard procedure” of making arms deals, at least in some parts of the world.

    Bribing the Brazilian president in particular would seem rather stupid to me — and why would Dassault do that? Dassault had Sarko to work as their sales agent, no need to bribe anybody, in particular not the president.

    Also, I would be surprised if a person in his position would accept any bribes.

    we (at least i am) just kidding around. But there is allways a possibiliy.

    in reply to: Rafales for Brasil #3, Cachorro-quente! #2388640
    Sign
    Participant

    It’s pretty clear that since Dassault had bought lula and jobim, saab bought everyone else :dev2:

    Now we talking :dev2:
    2-0 brazil-europe :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Modern fighters combat radius; #2388717
    Sign
    Participant

    Sources please!

    the sources is there..thou the source first specifide..

    in reply to: Rafales for Brasil #3, Cachorro-quente! #2388720
    Sign
    Participant

    Well well well… it doesn’t bode well for the Rafale at the moment; I think it will come down to cost and to how many people Saab bought in the FAB and in the brazilian industry.

    Nic

    If you going to bribe people, why not bribe the one making the decision?
    Its much more effective…and its not 200 bribes just 1. Easier getting away with, and cheaper. On the policial side it seems also easier due to no need for hard data on why the decision is made in that direction.

    So…
    who have been bribed who? 😉

    in reply to: Rafales for Brasil #3, Cachorro-quente! #2388738
    Sign
    Participant

    Don’t know about “Le Monde” (don’t read it anyway… too boring most of the time 😉 ), but, from what’s been said, the french proposed “total technology transfer”, which, unless “total” doesn’t have the same meaning on both sides of the atlantic would mean they’d build their own aircraft, with the exception of the first few which would come before everything is in place to do it.

    On the other hand, SAAB can’t offer them “complete production, since all parts d’ont depend on SAAB.. engines, for one, can’t be built in brasil if the US decide so… and chances are that they won’t give so easily their technology for “hot turbine parts”, for example, without which the brasilians won’t be able to make workable engines

    I know things in rafale thats not up to france only, and also in the weaponry. but this is classified and probably nothing the rest of world should know about..
    Independence depends from who..not from france….
    Look at the magnatude of french stuff in its inventory.

    The Swedish way of independance lies in the integration flexiblity. Every part is REPLACEABLE throu integration, and you are not as dependent on different parts so much. You also spred you dependence in a healthy way.
    This also makes the price better…

    I have no idea of the deal between GE, US, Sweden, Volvo Aero, Saab and Brazil in this case. But at the same time, you dont ither.

    in reply to: Modern fighters combat radius; #2388770
    Sign
    Participant

    :p:p:p:p:p:p:p
    BTW, the internal fuel increase doesn’t translate in the same combat radius increase.

    But, as always, the posts of Gripen fans are the funniest…

    :p
    they havent got the same profile/ordinance/external tank/s . The NG loadout is specifide above, A-to-A and one small ext tank(290usgal=1100L) , the gripen C isnt. But it probably got max external fuel(3*1100L).
    Its allways nice to amuse you 🙂

    in reply to: Modern fighters combat radius; #2388855
    Sign
    Participant

    How is it possible to have a combat radius of 702nm, but a range(one way) of only 1350nm? Also, I presume the 972nm range is with external tanks?

    That sounds pretty optimistic. That would be over 1 mpg, which I highly doubt.

    Courtesy of signatory who gathered the info..

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1

    the combat radius is have one external tank, the one way have none.
    the 972nm is with one external tank.

    the extra 1000km is done with a new tank tested on the Demo aircraft, with no other draggy stuff.
    i found this inhouse document on the subject
    http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab_OfferGripenNG_170409.pdf (page 6)

    in reply to: Modern fighters combat radius; #2388867
    Sign
    Participant

    gripen

    Gripen C range
    Combat radius: 800 km internal fuel (431nm)
    Combat radius: 1,550 Km with external fuel (837nm)
    Ferry range: 3,200 Km(1727nm)

    Gripen NG Range
    Range is increased an average of 40% over the JAS 39C as both the internal and external fuel capability is expanded.
    Combat radius: 1,300 Km + 30 minutes on station with A2A weapons. (702nm)
    Range (one-way): 2,500 Km on internal fuel(1350nm)
    Ferry range (one-way): 4,075 Km with external fuel(2200nm)
    Combat Radius estimate: 1,800 km with A2A weapons(972nm)

    One drop tank (450 Gal) gives the Gripen NG an extra range of approximately 1000 km.

    Courtesy of signatory who gathered the info..

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1

    Sign
    Participant

    If you say that you love eurocanards , Its obvious that we both have different looking criterions about an beautiful aircraft! In my opinion Eurofighter is ugliest fighter aircraft flying today! And also Tornado is such like a fliying tank, similar with the Mig-31.So discussion is meaningless.

    I agree..

    in reply to: Indian Air Force – News & Discussion # 13 #2388890
    Sign
    Participant

    No, there is NO such info on the link you gave.

    Yes it is, use the scroll of th mouse and look for FOI. in the first post

Viewing 15 posts - 781 through 795 (of 1,400 total)