Page 80 – Key Publishing

Sign

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,186 through 1,200 (of 1,400 total)

← 1 2 3 … 79 80 81 … 92 93 94 →

Author

Posts
January 17, 2009 at 2:47 am in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2491424

Sign
Participant

Well, lets see the data on the Gripen NG then…………:confused:

THE F414G IS IN THE AIR AND FLYING?!?
Why not see the data on F-35?

January 17, 2009 at 2:44 am in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2491427

Sign
Participant

I have no doubt the F-35 will be able to supercruise. Yet, the big question is like the Gripen NG at just over Mach 1 or something much more along the lines of the Typhoon. As they say the devil is in the details………….That said, considering the large amount of internal fuel the F-35 carries. Its likely to have much more range than it contemporaries nonetheless.

If, it can indeed “supercruise” at say over Mach 1.2 it would be a major achievement!:diablo:

No LM doubt, only SAAB doubt as usual?
Gripen C can sustain 1.05mach with AAM and one droptank without A/B add 25-35% more thust, what do you get? maybe it just stays there..

what data does support your LM claim?

Rangewise you have to do your homework.
Gripen has a range of 2500km on internal and 4075km on external. if military thust is used someone predicted 41 min of fuelburn for gripen thats not bad. and its going to be hard to beat for F-35.

January 17, 2009 at 2:28 am in reply to: Predict the winners! #2491453

Sign
Participant

I don’t have the time or inclination to check but hasn’t LCA capability far surpassed what was wanted and needed? By that I mean what was originally wanted and needed before that was revised, then revised again, then revised again, then… No manufacturer can produce the results wanted or needed if the customer keeps amending what is wanted and needed before what was previously wanted and needed can be produced.

Is the drifting LCA specification simply due to the customer being incapable of specifying requirement in an achievable manner or is there something more sinister here? I’m thinking along the lines that IAF would like a shinier toy than the locally produced toy and one way to do that would be to ensure that the local toy never got to the stage of being ready.

if you order a plane, and the developent snails for years, the technological evolution will caught up with the requirements. I think i would be proper to rewise the requirements in itrations for the plane to be up to date.

January 17, 2009 at 2:08 am in reply to: What could possibly need 41,000 feet of landing strip? #2491482

Sign
Participant

One notes both runways have these turnouts marked on the lakebed for something to follow. So were they for the now cancelled Blackswift demonstrator? (I’d think given it’s relatively small size it’d have been able to stop in less distance, not to mention the fact that it could have only landed on one runway at a time making the exitence of two of them puzzling.) Obviously nobody here is likely to know what they might be for (along with all the new construction given that Blackswift would have been built in the “white” world) but it still might be interesting to speculate.

I think its more like a acceleration path for a puls jet or another exotic propulsion. It´s very narrow by the way. A railed catapult?!!

Nice quot by the way, love it! 😀

January 17, 2009 at 2:01 am in reply to: IAF – News & Discussion #2491488

Sign
Participant

Well, I would have more confidence. If, the article was from the Indian Goverment or IAF…………:(

So your sayin´the official story is tha gripen is out? :/

January 17, 2009 at 1:56 am in reply to: Predict the winners! #2491505

Sign
Participant

Point is that Rafale and Typhoon do not have anything over the F 16 and 18 to justify their respective prices.

Funny guy there! 😀
The F-16 is a really old platform from the 70:s.. and is less capable in all aspects except radarwise(IN) and AoG store at the moment. Also it will not be as upgradable in the future when f-35 has arrived..

January 16, 2009 at 11:00 pm in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2491600

Sign
Participant

The person making the assertion has the responsibility to prove it. It’s not the person questioning the assertion’s responsibility to disprove it.

thats only generall speaking..

January 16, 2009 at 10:51 pm in reply to: IAF – News & Discussion #2491605

Sign
Participant

Gripen Denies It Failed MMRCA Evaluation

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIP011609.xml&headline=Gripen%20Denies%20It%20Failed%20MMRCA%20Evaluation

this seems all be based on official data, and the local newspaper on leaks(some credibility), roomers or a slander campaign..

January 16, 2009 at 10:08 pm in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2491675

Sign
Participant

I would add…………

His “own source” claims a Supercruise of Mach 1.05 with one external tank and 6-AAM’s or Mach 1.2 with just two wingtip Sidewinders. Which, besides be extremely limited in not even in the ball park of the Typhoon let alone the Raptor……………….

Wrong as usual!? Scooter!
the 1.05 is the Gripen C, not with 25-40% more thust F414G!?

January 16, 2009 at 10:05 pm in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2491679

Sign
Participant

Oh, I would love the source on that one………….along with speeds and altitudes.;)

aways asking for sources, but never gives em yourself scooter…

January 14, 2009 at 11:30 pm in reply to: Predict the winners! #2494090

Sign
Participant

The data isnt official, jet.
but to be fair
if this is true only F-16 or maybe Rafale fits.. i mean, is top candidates of the 5.
Rafales AESA is not fielded but tested right?

January 14, 2009 at 11:19 pm in reply to: Who would win a dogfight between an F15 and an F16? #2494102

Sign
Participant

F-16 is the first instable platform…
it make alot better turns?
Radar in dogfights? are y kidding?
to focus on is turn rates, and IR missiles. HMD? any model? otherwise HUD size, G-eronomics?

January 14, 2009 at 10:55 pm in reply to: JSF Defence Penetration Capabilities #2494114

Sign
Participant

The Rafale and Typhoon have a lot of very good qualities and capabilities, but they are Gen 4.5 aircraft. They don’t have the combination of capabilities that the F-35 has in terms of sensor capabilities/situational awareness/enhanced survivability.

There are also alot downsides to f-35 that makes it look real bad, in some areas.
if we talking about expanding the envelope, F-22 has done that in nearly all areas. thou but f-35 is back generations in some.
You can argue that f-35 is a badass fighter any way, and it really is, but it still has some sweetspots for the older gen. to expoit. even modern SAMs.

January 14, 2009 at 10:15 pm in reply to: Who would win a dogfight between an F15 and an F16? #2494156

Sign
Participant

Think it´s a showcase for HD
download from this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx

January 14, 2009 at 10:02 pm in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2494164

Sign
Participant

Yet, you are just giving your opinion on the F-15C bing more aerodynamic than the F-22A? If, not I would like a source…………..:D

you are kind of dumb, now its offical, look at the numbers given. It getting kind of pointless.
f(speed)= RCS, thust, Cp
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,186 through 1,200 (of 1,400 total)

← 1 2 3 … 79 80 81 … 92 93 94 →