dark light

seahawk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 3,269 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • seahawk
    Participant

    My feeling is that the Bison is still rather accident prone, which is not a surprise considering the age of the plane and the number of hours that have been put on those. Add the fact that this is still a plane the pilot needs to master, a higher accident rate is normal.

    seahawk
    Participant

    There are many reasons for such outcome.

    1. General superiority of Russian aircraft design in dogfights
    2. better pilot training by the IAF, a force that is not training to bomb unarmed shepherds in the mountains
    3. PR overdose of F-22 capabilities (not only has the MiG-21 done well against it, so have Rafale (dominating), F-18 SH and even Typhoon

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2270648
    seahawk
    Participant

    Or a push to drop the F-35.

    in reply to: Some Fokker/Rekkof updates. #526042
    seahawk
    Participant

    That is interesting but 2017 sounds a bit late for an up-dated F100 to enter the market. It will face the CSeries and probably also the up-dated E-Series as well the as the MRJ. On the other hand Fokker has a proven track record and a functioning support system.

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2271326
    seahawk
    Participant

    I see, a pic taken under optimum conditions, whe the one who has taken that was in an optimum position to get that and the B-2A crew was not aware about that to counter that or it was not seen as a real threat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_countermeasure

    I am talking about that pic: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1964675&postcount=844

    It has no real information, except for the fact that the B2 would probably be dead if an enemy fighter gets that close, but anybody who believes otherwise has probably had a little too much of USAF coolaid. But the B2 could probably as dead if they put a 20mm gun next to the IR cam. And I seriously doubt that IRCM would be used at airshows for other than entertaining effects.

    in reply to: Dorsal fin intakes and stealth #2271330
    seahawk
    Participant

    Better against ground based radars, and UAVs are currently not doing any high AoA manoeuvres, so the drawbacks are of no importance. And add the fact that this inlet position probably allows you to save RAM in the engine duct, which makes the drone cheaper to produce.

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271338
    seahawk
    Participant

    That is wrong. The important part is shielding the engines. This can be done in different ways. The top inlet is just a configuration that achieves the shielding by default.

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2271396
    seahawk
    Participant

    Of cause it can the limited “brain” of the sensor in mind. See the thousands of Atolls and Sidewinders fired without results outside simulated exercises or real ones at test ranges. Even the human eye with the whole brainpower behind can be outsmarted as magicians proof every day. At least when all that is moving with several hundred meters per second in an 3D enviroment and “target fixitation” becomes dangerous to every shooter.

    And the B2 pic shows an IR image from an IR camera pointed at the B2 using the Mk.I eyeball. My point was that this image shows nothing. If it shows anything the lack of obvious hotspots is quite interesting.

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271399
    seahawk
    Participant

    Speaking of the RCS, Lockheed has in mind the minimum value, paralay – average.

    I wonder where you found a number for the J-20. :diablo:

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271480
    seahawk
    Participant

    Such tables are a joke, when one screw not correctly fitted or one RAM cover or inlet missing, can already change the RCS by a factor of 10 and more.

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2271488
    seahawk
    Participant

    Regarding the IR signature. Does anybody believe that an object you can easily see with the naked eye could be masked from a semi-modern IR sensor against the sky… that is fantasy.

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271516
    seahawk
    Participant

    What a funny table that lists “plasma stealth” again…

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2271569
    seahawk
    Participant

    The crossection of the pak-fa is really inkredible for a fighter with internal bays!
    it could really turn out to be a really fast jet in this bunch. How is the intakes optimized?

    But it also has the inlets with the least of ducting and probably has not hidden compressor blades when viewed from the front.

    in reply to: How many F-35A's will be ordered? #2272090
    seahawk
    Participant

    That will be decided in the next few years. The F-35C could be dropped if the problems with the hook proves to be costly to fix. This would mean the USN would be looking at more Super Hornets – probably in a RCS reduced version. Depending on what Boeing can do and how much this Silent Hornet would cost there would be a US made fighter in competition to the F-35. Then you already hear some people openly think about a F version of the T-X program for use by the ANG for CAS and air policing.

    If development goes well I think F-35B is save, F-35 will reach the 1000 units, but further delays and cost increases, can easily mean less than 600 F-35 being built.

    Export wise, I consider the UKs F-35B as secure, otherwise the 2 carriers would be a joke.
    Norway seems a done deal too. Japan looks safe too. All other contracts could fall (Italy) or will fall (Netherlands).

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale #14 – News & Discussion #2273309
    seahawk
    Participant

    Really not.

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 3,269 total)