It was soon clear that using the gun itself as ballast, but not servicing and supporting it, and not buying loaders, ammunition, etc. would be a cheaper option.

Isn’t that hilarious!?

Objective: Save some money.
Idea: Scrap the gun (against all wisdom).
Problem: Too complicated, costs too much.
Solution: Keep the gun, but make it unusuable.
Conclusion: No noticeable amount of money saved, but doubious idea enforced!

(I always thought that such moves are only possibly by Pentagon and German armed forces)

I plan to develop a kind of UAV equiped with new kind of controlling system that can spread its range,so more capabilities will be turned on.But I don’t want to seek helps of investors.I’m not doing business.Maybe the plane is just for fun.
So,I dreamed about that one guy who won the lotto 😀 …can sponsor me.
As you know,who can give me more than $100?
Now I just figured that there is a gap of $2300 to $2500 between now and success.

I POSTED THIS ON THE GENERAL DISCUSSION,BUT NEARLY NO ONE READ.

SO I RE-POST THIS HERE.I HOPE YOU CAN GIVE ADVICE OR JUST HAVE A FUN.

THANX

Do you have a degree in engineering plus several years of experience in control system design? Sorry, you don’t sound like it.

If answer is NO, my advice: Let it be.

Does j-10 have enough juice to take off from a jumping ramp? Sea harrier and su-33 can. Why do russian pick ramp? does it have less preparation for takeoff?

The sky-jump is an odd solution and basically frees you from making a real carrier-capable aircraft. From the aerodynamic configuration I think nearly all aircraft can be converted including the J-10. Even aircraft with high approach speeds can be helped with more effective slat/flap system.

I don’t get it. It’s just now firing it’s FIRST missile? The F-22 has been firing missiles in training for years, what was the hold up with the Typhoon?

I think operational shot means
– line pilot (no test pilot)
– standard missile (although that would most likely be so in a test, too)
– standard delivery aircraft (no software additions, no BAE test engineers to arm the missile)
– standard operational procedures (again, no test procedures, military handbook)

As I told you before, that’s makes a huge difference to prototype testing. When an aircraft fires a missile in a test, it will most likely do it operational, too. But in operation many more safety factors are included and the success rate is required to be much higher.

Example: The German air force is not allowed to use external tanks on the Typhoons by now. :rolleyes:

In past wars, starting from WW1, aircraft often flew with bright colors dabbed on. The Red Baron and the whole Jagdstaffel 1, the Red Banner units, Hartmann with the tulip, Vietnam era. Planes also need to look cool. I’m serious. A pilot’s ego is very importnant and a slick plane can boost it. And it seems that these day those greyish colors are cool.

Btw, what happened to that technology that used foil instead of paint? Never heared anything after the F-18 testbed. Those foils would be great for some (temporary) gay colors on a jet.

Depending on the threat environment I would maybe paint my aircraft pink to make my buddies all clear I am one of theirs. How often did AAA shoot down friendly aircraft? If in Vietnam the F-4’s have been allowed to use Sparrows, some more American planes would be down surely. The Syrians once managed to shot down a couple of Iraqi MiG-21 which were there to help them, the last victim was a British Tornado in 2003. IFF works great! The old motto is true: don’t fly when the SAM-guys have fresh missiles on the rack (didn’t the Vietnamese down some of their own, too?).

Yes, speeds and range do not account for practical considerations like warload and required fuel reserves. That problem exists for anyone who looks at any airplane’s spec sheet without understanding what it tells you.

E/F is a great airplane that is hamstrung by a wing design optimized for carrier-based operations. But it is now and will forever be what it was originally designed – a light attack airplane to replace the A-7.

Why didn’t they just keep the A-7?

I think for Greece more roles are intended, it is supposed to be used as classic multi-role fighter with strong a2a role. in BVR it exceeds probably the capabilities of all existing Greece fighter. If it is cheaper to procure the F-18E, a carrier and USN optimized aircraft, or rather procure the Eurofighter or Rafale with broader spectrum is the question. It would be the first export order for the SuperHornet and is probably well discounted.

So why bother with nationality markings at all, then? If IFF allows ID of threats, visual ID isn’t necessary. And since low-visibiilty is intended to make aircraft less conspicuous “close-up,” I don’s see the need to bother with nationality markings any more on low-visibility schemes.

All this BVR-stuff is mostly still grea theory. It didn’t work in Vietnam. OK, that is nearly 40 years ago. In later conflicts which did not include USA, WVR combat was the majority. First, due to lack of BVR skills, secondly because IFF doesn’t really work. Last conflicts with USA are hardly a benchmark for air combat (when it comes to a2a).
I think for strike and CAs aircraft a good camo can help to escape visual lock by a trailing fighter. The grey camo does help at higher altitudes, today’s aircraft are not without camo.

The low pressure ratio of the J-85 may be contributable to the early design, it is just not as advanced as other engines. J-79 may be considered the best engine of its time before arrival of the first low-bypass turbofans. Today’s engines are optimised for good performance in dry thrust, while earlier models may have focussed more on best reheat thrust. The M-53 of the Mirage 2000 is also a good example of a rather “old” design objective.