Page 67 – Key Publishing

Tu22m

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 991 through 1,005 (of 1,142 total)

← 1 2 3 … 66 67 68 … 75 76 77 →

Author

Posts
December 31, 2012 at 2:22 am in reply to: X-32A vs X-35A again #2267651

Tu22m
Participant

But its so fat… it looks like a harbour porpoise on its back with wings strapped to it. In all fairness I think it would have been a very cheap jet to manufacture and thus it would be perfect to replace F16 and FA18.

THe STOVL part is the biggest wtf moment so far. Why kill all other models so that one version can land (but not take off) vertically while loaded. They could get a miniraptor or a super fast and super agile interceptor/bomber that would silence all critics. The Russians produced the Su47 and MiG 1.42/44 at the same time with expected top speeds of over mach 2,3 and superlative maneuverability while still stealthy.

The performance of the Su47 and MiG 1.44 is enough to almost make me drool. Just look at the MiG 1.44: internal carriage of missiles, over 350KN thrust, top speed of 3,185 km/h and of course still having canards, thrust vectoring and low wingloading. The Su47 1,800 km/h on dry thrust, 2650 km/h on full thrust, also with thrust vectoring. Just imagine those with more polish on the stealth part. Only the F22 comes close to that.

Thats the performance USAF could get if they just said no to having STOVL in the bids. Now the rest of the world will get it instead and US will only have 182 birds that can mach the kinematic performance of its peers. But if I have to choose between the X 32 and X 35 i would go for the X 32 in numbers or X 35 if i buy fewer.

December 31, 2012 at 1:36 am in reply to: J-20 Thread 8 #2267655

Tu22m
Participant

Oops. I mis-remembered. The pitch down was actually at low speed flight, not takeoff.

Are you sure its not just during high alpha at low speed? In that case usually the canards are stabilizing the aircraft in the angle of the momentum while the lift is generated from the thrust and wings.

It will look like this (or more extreme @ higher alpha).

So its only for a stable high alpha angle and thats why it looks counter intuitive.

Same thing goes here, canards stabilizing alpha angle.

In leveled flight they move around a lot to keep the aircraft steady and producing lift.

December 30, 2012 at 9:26 pm in reply to: X-32A vs X-35A again #2267760

Tu22m
Participant

There are many ways to make the blockers. Pak FA for instance seems to have two modes, one for high airflow and one for low visibility (in the engine air inlet).

I dont think the X32 was that inferior when it came to RCS. Didnt both meet the criteria?

Why why why was STOVL a criteria? The F35 base model could have been slimmer (less drag) and as a result from that also be lighter (higher thrust/weight ratio).

December 27, 2012 at 1:26 am in reply to: MiG-21 – still unpleasant surprise at Cope India exercise, how so ? #2269196

Tu22m
Participant

Not according to some posters on the forum.

With AWACS the F22 is a nightmare² but without AWACS and if your jet has IRST and flies radio silent I think its not such a definitive suicide anymore.

Some referenced poster on the forum: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1966786&postcount=989

December 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2269350

Tu22m
Participant

You keep conflating Switzerland and Sweden

Are you for real?

No. Everything Switzerland needs from SAAB for the Gripen tender tops out at <3,4bn$. Thats all spares for 30 years + the 22 aircrafts + training.

In the Swedish contract they earnmarked 90 bn SEK that includes R&D, all operational costs and all maintenance + the aircrafts themselves over a 30 year period per airframe for 60 airframes. Its roughly 12,9 bn $ or 13,9 bn $ for a Canadian sized fleet.

That puts all other costs at the equivalent of 1-1,3bn $ per 22 aircrafts if counted as Sweden does.

EDIT: So in order to make this relevant for the thread its either 65 Gripen for <13bn $ or F35 for at least 29 bn $.

Just to show one alternative cost, the F35 budget could buy 100 Gripen E and 200 Avangers (Predator C) and still save a couple of billions for air defence.

December 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm in reply to: Korea says no to US Global Hawk FMS offer, will switch to open bidding #2269633

Tu22m
Participant

Everone knows small countries cant afford to build UAVs. A country that isnt even top 20 in GDP (2011) can’t possibly build this.

Korea has money and know how, what else is there to need? Apid 60 came from the same country as the other examples btw…

December 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2269643

Tu22m
Participant

No, that’s just the initial purchase price and does not include operating costs

Again that doesn’t include operating costs like salaries and fuel

Again, this doesn’t include operating costs

This is the one estimate that does include operating costs.

The purchase of the 126 Indian jets is 10,4bn $. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-to-buy-126-rafale-jets-for–104-billion/225993-3.html The rest (10 bn$) is spares (apart from initial ones) and other additional costs for 30 years. I don’t know if they count the salaries and fuel, but they should be lower than the Canadian.

The Canadian 29bn$ includes more than the Indian and Swiss tenders, obviously. But when everything is included, like in the Swedish order I linked to, it stills ends up at half the costs of the F35. For the Rafale its possibly <17 bn $ compared to >29bn $.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/it_telekom/allmant/article3602962.ece

Sammanlagt kostar Gripen-satsningen 90 miljarder eller tre miljarder per år i 30 år framåt. Då ingår också utveckling, drift och underhåll.

In total the Gripen acquisition costs 90 bn SEK (<13bn$), or three bn per year 30 years ahead. Included is R&D, operational costs and maintenance..

[7 SEK ~1 $ and the order is for 60 jets]

So no, the Canadian figure is not the only one including operational costs. The Swedish numbers are calculated in a similar fashion and end up at around half the price of F35. Rafale would end up closer to 16bn if R&D, fuel, weapons, salaries etc is included.

December 24, 2012 at 7:34 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2270105

Tu22m
Participant

It seems as if the anti-F-35 deck of cards is slowly tumbling.

CAIRO — The F-35 fighter jet is not dead.

If opponents of the F-35 had examined the cost of the alternatives — as they should have and as the government should have — they would have long ago realized that there are no “cheap” options. The four other frequently mentioned contenders have list prices equal to or greater than the F-35

You do know that the statements Matthew Fisher makes are nothing but bs?

In Norway he might get away with it.

Of course all countries calculate differently. In India the life cycle + initial purchase cost for 126 Rafale would be 20bn$. And thats for 6’000 flight hours per airframe. 65*20k/126= 10,3bn$ for the same fleet size as Canada opted for with the F35 over the same period of time.

The Swiss bought 22 Gripens for 3bn with everything they needed for 30 years (probably no missiles included). Translated to Canadian sized fleet its 8,86bn. Sweden set a cost ceiling at less than 15bn$ for a Canada sized fleet. This includes R&D, maintenance, weapons etc.

Dassault sent in a last minute bid, or actually a too late bid, at 3bn$ for 18 jets (not fixed price) but in a similar package as SAAB. For Canada that would mean 10,8bn$ for 30 years of operation per airframe.

And Canada pays 25-29bn$ for 65 F35 for 20 years of operation per airframe.

What has to be considered is the alternative cost. What could the same money and amount of personell buy instead?
To say its just as “cheap” as the competitors that use 53-72% as much raw materials, less avionics and less stealth coatings is nothing but a fairytale. And thats what the other tenders, that also look at life cycle costs, say.

This is what I could get from public sources like these:
Rafale India: http://www.defencetalk.com/rafale-fighter-wins-mmrca-contract-india-briefs-losing-european-countries-40250/
Swiss Gripen: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5248281
Canadian F35: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/12/auditor-general-f-35.html

December 24, 2012 at 11:45 am in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2270182

Tu22m
Participant

Wow, the quality of those last two links is magnificent.

December 23, 2012 at 6:47 pm in reply to: pakfa stealthiness debate thread #2270391

Tu22m
Participant

I think its premature to talk about the stealth performance of the Pak FA when we dont have anything public to go on. But for the sake of comparing:

(never mind the pylons, its just good pictures that outline fuselage curvature well. But we still have to remember that T50 is still a prototype.)

Regarding thrust/weight etc. When compared with different fuel and weapon loads one can get any result they want. Pak FA has a very great range, as all flankers have. But a F22 with the same amount of fuel on board will have a lower thrust/weight ratio and wing loading.

Its just mathematics.
Thrust/weight (fuel + weapons will be called X)
Pak FA: +314KN thust / (18,5 tonnes + X)
F22: +312KN thrust / (19,7 tonnes + X)
Wing loading
Pak FA: (18,5 tonnes + X)/78,8m²
F22: (19,7 tonnes + X)/78,0m²
According to math Pak FA looks benificial here.

Radar performance:

N-050 AESA is expected to be on the Pak FA.

Optical systems:
Pak FA: OLS-50, improved OLS-35 that detects enemy fighters head on at around 50km and from the rear at around 90km.
F22: Pilot visuals, MAWS.

Currently the F35 is more clean, but if we compare the X35 with the T50 prototypes it isnt a huge difference. Prototypes should look more rough than the final product. Where it all ends is for the future to tell.

December 18, 2012 at 12:57 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2272970

Tu22m
Participant

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f18_turn_rate1_576.png

look at the pictures of the aircraft silhouettes. closely.

Serious question: Do you believe that the SH outmaneuvers the classic Hornet?

Depends on how many drop tanks that are carried.

December 18, 2012 at 12:24 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2272983

Tu22m
Participant

Once again, you cannot combine charts from different sources that make different assumptions.

If you doubt that these assumptions make a huge difference, just look at the chart that ‘proves’ the SH has better handling than the Hornet, when that is clearly not the case.

Each chart represents a very specific scenario and unless you know all the assumptions that went into each chart, you cannot blindly combine them, you just cannot.

The chart shows FA18C and FA18E with the exact same loadout at the exact same altitude with the same % of fuel and at the exact same speed. Its a comparison of flight characteristics with a specific loadout.

The only difference from the F16A is two AIM120D. Please provide any source other than your own dreams as you frequently turn to for making stupid claims.

1. Since the F-35 performs as well as a clean F-16, I think your doom-and-gloom is a bit overstated

2. You can look at real studies that say WVR is so random and missiles are so deadly, that even large differences in maneuverability have only marginal impacts on outcome.

3. In the real world:
– WVR – all fighters are equal
– BVR – F-35 slaughters all

This is how you fail as a troll.
1. You dont have any source, and when sources say you are wrong you turn to this.

Once again… …LOLOLOL

Yes, that is an actual quote.
2. BFM is sort of based on maneuvering. If you can’t turn, climb or run compared to the chaser then the chaser most likely will eat you unless you are much more skilled or still have missiles left, which brings up the question why you would go into a dogfight if you have them.
3 WVR, not all fighters are equal, not even a genuine retard would assume that. BVR, the F35 should have an edge.

If all fighters are equal (since speed, agility etc doesnt matter), why didn’t USAF adopt F117 as their main fighter?

And please, show me where I make a doom and gloom scenario.

Begone troll!

December 17, 2012 at 11:04 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273016

Tu22m
Participant

can you link the post instead of the image 🙁 , all the image gone i can’t see any thing , at very high altitude then i think f-15 will have advantage but at low and medium altitude i think F-16 is the best , and F-35 is quite quite close to F-16 which is good enough , btw F-18 while not very good at turning like F-15 , F-16 , it have great nose pointing ability , and all F-35 version also have that great ability too

Yes, The FA18 has great high alpha handling (or at least high alpha entry), the charts cant show that… or they can but its hard to make it easy to read (plotting instant and sustained turns was borderline too much). I did another compilation where I converted the F15Cs sustained Gs into deg/second @15K and it was fairly close in the mach 0,4-mach 1,2 region.

Here are the links again:
F16 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5260-view-previous.html
F15 (this one correlates pretty ok but not exactly to my old chart) http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1599867&postcount=108
F18 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13383-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.html

Basically this is needed for turning.
1 Large control surfaces with high maneuverability (to force the plane into high alpha).
2 Low wing loading (to get tighter turns according to Newton)
3 High thrust/weight ratio to compensate for the energy bleed from the high AoA or turn rates.

1 Gives great nose pointing abilities and this is what makes the F35 look good. The other two parameters are needed for the classic dogfights and this is where the competition looks better.

So the F35 will be excellent at pointing its nose to at the enemy and fire away its 4 missiles. If the enemy survives it will most likely end bad for the F35, as concluded in the Australian inquiry.

Btw, does anyone know how to put users on ignore? Irtusk and some other trolls look like promising candidates to test that function on.

The attachement is Draken getting 100 deg + Alpha in the 60s

December 17, 2012 at 9:20 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273071

Tu22m
Participant

you’re comparing apples to oranges to kumquats

in other words, YOUR CHART IS WORTHLESS lol

F16A vs FA18C/D + E/F at the same altitude with the same speeds is apples vs oranges? The only orange among the apples is the F15 part since I dont have the altitude or version of the airframe. The rest is correct.

You can sing your trololo song all you want, still doesnt change anything.

December 17, 2012 at 8:19 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273121

Tu22m
Participant

sustained turn rate of f-15 is better than F-16 😮 seriously ?????

http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id15.html
sir i think your graph is completely wrong

That might be the case, it also has a lot to do with altitudes.

This is what I compiled it from.
F16A @15K with sidewinders http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f16a-15k.jpg
F15 (what version and altitude?) http://lockon.co.uk/img/technology/pic1_9.jpg
FA18 C/D + E/F @15k: http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f18_turn_rate1_576.png

F16A and FA18 both at 15K, the altitude of F15 is not known.
The chart @15k for the F16A matches this one: http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f16-sust_680.jpg (not fully at lower speeds but in general its not very far from it)
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 991 through 1,005 (of 1,142 total)

← 1 2 3 … 66 67 68 … 75 76 77 →