dark light

seahawk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 3,269 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Serbian Air Force has started lookig in to new fighters #2425845
    seahawk
    Participant

    I hope Serbia does not forget recent history and does not buy aircraft from countries who bimbed them in the last decade. Serbia needs a reliable partner and that can only be Russia. So SU-30s seem like a good option.

    in reply to: Rafale v Typhoon and the F22… #2425846
    seahawk
    Participant

    If you read the articles in AFM it becomes onvious that the Rafale dominated EF. The lame excuse given by EADS is just that – lame.

    Rafale could keep up with F-22 and shotting down Typhoons was like clubbing baby seals to them. It happened over Corsica and it happned again over the desert.

    in reply to: EADS lobbying for tanker deadline extension #2425871
    seahawk
    Participant

    One should tell them to STFU. Boeing won, EADS did not have a product it could sent into the competition.

    in reply to: No Bid for NG/EADS Tanker #2425946
    seahawk
    Participant

    If you have a plane, that does not meet the need of the customer, you should shut up and be done with it. The USAF will get another Boeing product, that will serve it extremely well, just like KC-135 did for 5 decades now.

    Better plane, better offer. And Boeing will deliver on time and within the the terms of the contract. Beoing is not EADS.

    in reply to: A400 "rescue" deal moves closer #2431466
    seahawk
    Participant

    When A400 has been in production as long as C-130 Ill start listening to A400 proponents. But I have a nagging feeling that when the last A400 rolls offf the line, there will still be orders coming in for the “Herk”.

    Why not? C-130 found taker when the C-141, C-5, C-17, C-27, CASA 235-295, AN-26, AN-12, AN-124, etc. were available.

    in reply to: A400 "rescue" deal moves closer #2431482
    seahawk
    Participant

    But Seahawk, if you remember how well a certain program for a re-engined and re-cockpitted Hercules was run… I wouldn’t trust Lockheed to turn the Jerkules into a true Jerk-haul-ass.

    Mismanaged as the A400M obviously is, at least it shows some ambition. Can’t really say that about a country depending on either a pimped 1950s transport, an about-to-be-updated 1960s transport, or an enlarged 1970s prototype. Which is rather odd, considering the expeditionary nature of that latter country’s military.

    Well in all fairness, I would trust Lockheed or Airbus to deliver a fitting aircraft, if the politics stay out of the technical side. The European turbopro engine for A400M leaves more than a little to be desired. I remember Airbus officals saying more than once, that it was not the option they thought the best.

    in reply to: A400 "rescue" deal moves closer #2431503
    seahawk
    Participant

    Better built a fat belly herc, than giving money to the failed European project.

    in reply to: 4.99 generation fighter #2431880
    seahawk
    Participant

    This has been covered over and over and over and over.

    Europe does not have the will or the need. We have the money should we wish to.

    In fact Europe would not have the money, without increasing their spending on military hardware, which is political suicide in any European country.

    If a seriours threat to Europe would show up, then it would be different.

    in reply to: 4.99 generation fighter #2432106
    seahawk
    Participant

    The US has F-22 and F-35, which is all they need and F-35 will sell on the export market.

    Europe does not have the will nor the money to built a competitor to T-50.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2432554
    seahawk
    Participant

    The question howver is if the primary reason for the TVC is actual manouverability, or if it is also a RCS neutral way to trim the plane.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2432583
    seahawk
    Participant

    If I have read that right, are you seriously suggesting the T-50 prototype has an RCS better than the F-35?
    And how will the final version be a world leader if it matches the F-35’s RCS but doesn’t match the F-22’s RCS, by my logic the F-22 would still be the world leader in that department.

    In frontal RCS, it seesm to be having comparable design features as F-35. However both US products (F-22 and F-35) are way more refined today. T-50 needs to get a few modifications to come to the same level. (the IRST housing alone needs some work, as does the underside around the engines and surely the back)

    But T-50 is first protoype. Much of it will be refined until series production starts. The general layout and design should make it possible to match F-22, which will be out of production when T-50 enters service.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2432603
    seahawk
    Participant

    Just remember that the current plane is a first prototype not more. And even for that most sources see the RCS around F-35. The final production version will be much more refined. Which means it will be world leading.

    seahawk
    Participant

    2013 was the end of the first test phase They never talked about series production at that date. 2015 would be quick enough. how long did it take from YF-22 until the first F-22 were prodcued?

    The final production version will also be much improved. Having new engines, even more RCS reduction. All in all the series version will be fastly superior to any other airplane in service by 2018.

    in reply to: 36 rafale for Brazil #2 #2390712
    seahawk
    Participant
    in reply to: the F-35, does it make any sense? #2393629
    seahawk
    Participant

    One should be honest, that it won´t be much cheaper than F-22, so it would make sense to buy more of those and buy new legacy fighters to replace worn out G-16,F-15 and F-18.

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 3,269 total)