Indian Navy’s chopper.

Govt drags feet on anti-submarine chopper deal

Is there anything they aren’t dragging their feet on?

It will be news when one of their programs moves forward in a predictable and timely fashion.

Hah!

So reducing the KPP’s so that the aircraft could meet them was ok was it?

Real progress is to be celebrated, just as real issues should be examined.

Are you having trouble following the conversation? I was referring to his tendency to dismiss any and every favorable report while clinging to any unfavorable report, even when they come from unreliable sources like APA.

To try and shut down discussion as certain posters do if comment is not to their liking by throwing around childish abuse, check the tone of most of your posts and those of jackster / jsffan / jackjack (though i could easily be convinced that you are in fact all of the above) to see what i mean, only further exposes the likelyhood of a high level of accuracy in the negative analysis of the issues.

Let me get this straight, you think that your perception of how negative jackjack’s posting habits “further exposes the likelyhood of a high level of accuracy in the negative analysis of the issues?”

That is an interesting approach to reality. :stupid:

If he woke up tomorrow and posted in a manner you viewed as “positive” would that mean the “level of accuracy” of the “negative analysis” would go down? :confused:

What do your consistently negative posting habits say about the “level of accuracy” of “negative analysis?” Does your negativity and general abusiveness cancel out his, leaving us with regular old reality again where message board posts do not impact program performance at all? :highly_amused:

The damn aircraft is horrendously expensive for the eventual edge it is going to provide users. If the thing had got into service when it was supposed to that expense may just have been justifiable.
The delay in fielding a truly combat capable aircraft creates the risk and opportunity for any edge that an aircraft fielded on time may have attained to be significantly eroded if not already negated alongside which it is still eye wateringly expensive.

The only winners here are LM and politicians.

I disagree.

APA has so far consistently predict better than L.M, source: F35study2008 bowman0558.pdf
-compare objectives vs reality

[ATTACH=CONFIG]221681[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221682[/ATTACH]

reality:
Turn performance for the US Air Force’s F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g’s to 4.6 sustained g’s.
The F-35B had its sustained g’s cut from five to 4.5 g’s, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated
from 5.1 to five sustained g’s.
Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by
eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively.
F-35A acc.=61 sec vs LM objective <40 sec
F-35A combat radius=590 nm vs L.M objective 690 nm
F-35A sustained G= 4.6g vs L.M objective +6g

:stupid:

APA has done nothing but post a never-ending stream of garbage about the F-35. If (and inevitably when) something goes wrong they immediately claim to have been proven “right,” but that has little value when they can be counted on to predict that everything will go wrong all the time.

Similarly their predictions for the PAK FA and J-20 are proving to be riddled with errors as well.

Just look at this pile of crap:

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Picking on just the errors in the data table:

The F-22 is credited with “high agility” along with the J-20 while the PAK FA is listed as “extreme plus,” and the Su-35 is “extreme.” Based on what?

The J-20 is listed as green for thrust vectoring based on “accommodated 3-D.”

All aircraft are listed as “high power aperture” except the F-35. (Naturally they know this because they have access to… well… nothing at all.)

They code the J-20 as green for “side looking ESA apertures” with the comment “insufficient data.”

Similarly the J-20 is given a green for “high situational awareness” with the comment “likely.” :love-struck:

All aircraft are green for “supersonic weapons delivery” except the F-35, which they erroneously state has “bomber style” doors. (which are designed to operate up to the F-35’s maximum speed.)

All aircraft are credited with “large engine growth” except the F-35. :very_drunk: (even though there are multiple enhanced engines in the works for the F-35 right now…)

On low observable they credit the F-35 with “yes but partial” while the PAK FA is credited with “yes or partial” along with the J-20.

They also say the F-35 does not have “good non-RF observables.” (Which of course both the PAK FA and J-20 have… :applause:)

We also learn that the F-35 does not have a good internal fuel load.

What is the bottom line? Everything is bad about the F-35. Anything that is unknown about the J-20 or PAK FA is automatically at least as good as the F-35, generally better, and there are numerous factual errors.

Naturally they back their assessments up with a bunch of crudely edited graphics, which are also riddled with errors.

They are clowns, period.

… and?

Then why are politically related responses posted here?

Why don’t you ask the people who posted them? I didn’t say anything about politics other than to point out that if you don’t know what is going on it is better not to weight in.

Thanks for the corrections.. I can’t wait to see the perfection of your German or French, in return.

My German is poor, and my French is practically non-existent. Of course when I am having trouble making myself understood in German I don’t get snarky about it…

Will the ban extend to only India_Specific components or to the entire aircraft? It would bring quite a significant financial impact if Sukhoi were unable to export the jet to its traditional customer base especially to one of its largest defence buyers.

I think we can agree something is missing from that article. There is no way Russia would agree not to export the PAK FA, India must know this, and PAK FA export orders would be in India’s interest anyway.

Most likely what India wants is real participation in the development program, the article makes this clear, with ownership of its technological contributions and the ability to veto exports. (As the US has with the Gripen for instance.)

Surely India would not welcome a sale to China or any state closely aligned with China. (Including Pakistan of course)

If this article is accurate it suggests major issues ahead for the PAK FA program. If India wants real participation and work share for its $5.5 billion that is going to be difficult to negotiate, especially considering their limited capabilities relative to Russia. I also wonder how the program could have reached this point without a deal having been reached yet on the funding for the remaining development.

Normally I am the one who claims F-35 is a flying brick; but not in this case: Here is my version of the 30k feet acceleration graph:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]221545[/ATTACH]

Side notes:
F-16 blk50 (2xAIM-120s or AIM-9s), data is taken from flight manual; but linearly interpolated for required weight and mach number.
F-15E PW229 (4xAIM-7s), data is taken from flight manual acceleration graph; but linearly interpolated for required altitude.
F-18C (2xAIM-7 2xAIM-9) and F-18E (AIM-120, 2x AIM-9) data is directly taken flight manual.
F-5E data is taken from flight manual, interpolated for required altitude.
Mig-29 (2xR-60+4 pylons): acceleration values deviated from excess power graphs as the manual suggests.
Su-27 (2xR-73): acceleration values deviated from excess power graphs same way MiG-29 manual suggests.
Mig-23ML (2xR-23): acceleration taken from manual, interpolated for altitude.

F-22 and F-35, are estimates based on static T/W, intake configuration, my own estimates about drag, etc etc. No sources, its ok to ignore them both.

Altitude is 30k feet; all aircraft carry 50% fuel plus the mentioned payloads.

How would your F-35 estimate change with +5% or +10% thrust?

…likewise on topics related to physics, that You are clearly clueless about.

:highly_amused:

Your opinion means so much to me, especially given your track record around here.

No. In fact with 50% fuel, Su-27/35 has inferior acceleration to most aircraft types. However when fuelled for equal range its quite possible.

However, if we are talking about precise validity of the graph, none of these numbers are factually correct. Here are some numbers from their respective flight manuals:

F-16: M0,8 to M1,2 -> 34 seconds; time to M1.6 (from M0,8) -> 69 seconds; top speed = M1,91 (which looks correct in the graph)
MiG-29: M0,8 to M1,2 -> 42 seconds; time to M1,6 -> 68 seconds; top speed = M2,25
F/A-18C (with 2x AIM-9+2xAIM-7): M0,8 to M1,2 -> 48 seconds; top speed M1,51
F-5E: M0,8 to 1,2 -> 84 seconds; top speed M1,45 (looks correct)

To add some other known aircraft to these;

F-15E (PW-229, with 4x AIM-7): M0,8 to M1,2 -> 36 seconds; time to M1,6 -> 66 seconds; top speed = M2,1
Su-27S: M0,8 to M1,2 -> 50 seconds; time to M1,6 -> 83 seconds; top speed = ??
MiG-23ML M0,8 to M1,2 -> 48 seconds; time to M1,6 -> 75 seconds; top speed = M1,8
F/A-18E (with 2x AIM-9+2xAIM-7): M0,8 to M1,2 ->~54 seconds top speed = M1,46

As for Su-35; it has same aerodynamics as Su-27, and due to increased fuel capacity, it has same (or similar) T/W with Su-27 at 50% fuel load, so I expect same acceleration from it.

As for F-22, It has same T/W as F-15E and similar aerodynamic layout. Sure it does have some aerodynamic improvements, but it also lacks variable ramps so, IMHO, those values are greatly exeggerated and F-22 fall very close to F-15/16 and may even fall behind them at some speeds.

As for F-35, altough fat and underpowered, its roughly comperable to F-18E in acceleration, so I find 57 second estimate (M0,8 to M1,2) to be valid. However, none of the other aircraft performs as good as the graph claims.

An APA slide riddled with errors and implausible “calculations.” Shocking! :rolleyes:

Naturally this won’t stop some around here from reposting this again and again and again…