hopsalotGuess I was right but the asshurtness part.
Are you finnished with you rant?
I posted an article about PCA in Usaf(not f-35) thread. And then you go highwire about That I should post in F-35 thread..
No I will not post in F-35, thread. Not even on your command.Oh and the F-15 upgrades was about its status and place in USAF, cut me some slack for bringing up F-22 and F-35 too. It was about the broader picture anyway.
And other brought it up as well.
A post full of clueless drivel, misrepresenting what the actual link said… yeah. Great contribution.
hopsalotDo I detect asshurtness coming from you.
No, you detect fatigue with your incessant amateurish trolling.
My reading comprehension is fine. That article can be broken down any way you want.
No, it isn’t. You claimed it said things it didn’t. This isn’t a question of different ways the article could be read. We aren’t talking about symbolism in a poem.
But brain for thoughts, it does say it will aim for A2A mission primarly. Then you can throw any autonomous piloting out the Window. It will newer come to pass on such a large A2A mission platform. Forget lasers too, the part with cost wise will dominates here. It will not be in this turn around anyway. Later perhaps.
According to you. The article, which you claim you read and understand, mentions both lasers and autonomy as options being considered.
“While there’s no consensus yet on whether PCA should be unmanned, an enemy could disrupt a remotely piloted aircraft’s datalink. An autonomous solution could fare better in an A2AD environment, though a machine’s ability to make good air combat decisions has not been proved in flight yet and ethical questions loom over whether an autonomous system should take on a kill mission, Grynkewich says.”
and
““On the lethality side, obviously the dream would be to have something with an unlimited magazine, something [like] directed energy type capabilities,” he says. “Is that going to be something that we can mature on the timelines we’re talking about? Maybe, maybe not, but whenever we get it, we’d really like to be able to do something like that.””
So once again you seem to have a comprehension issue.
Biggest throw away, look at those dates, 2025-29. And mix it with laser and ion canons.. riight.
The USAF has a laser weapon in development that is scheduled to be operational in that timeframe:
“The dawn of the combat laser era might begin in 2021 when the US air force hopes to begin demonstrations of a podded electric laser system for fifth and sixth-generation fighter jets that can destroy incoming missiles, not just steer them off course.”
About 7, 8 or 9G, a totaly murky argument.
You claimed the article said “more maneuverability.” Don’t try to weasel out of your own words. Just admit you were wrong and move on like an adult for once.
It doesn’t say just how large, but FakFa is larger vs both F-22 and F-35. Case in point.
So are lots of things… Are all things bigger than an F-22 now PAK FA-like? A B-1 bomber is bigger than an F-22 or F-35. Does that mean I would be justified in claiming that the 6th generation fighter will be B-1 like?
Speedy, and A2A mission role. Its a given its not a flying wing, but something faster vs say F-35.
Again, this is actually the exact opposite of what the article actually says, yet another read comprehension fail:
“Whether the PCA follows a traditional fighter model or a flying wing design will come later in the USAF’s analysis, but the service is putting a premium on a long-range platform with a large magazine capacity that would prove highly lethal.”
Its a two engine concept.you can dismiss anything I wrote, and clutch for straws if you like.
Another fail… the article says nothing about number of engines.
Manuverable? Sure, both F-35 and PakFa is Manuverable. And let me return the favor, where did I or the article mention low speed maneuverability? There is both ITR and STR on any given jet. Why not pick both.
Neither of those measures fully describe an aircraft’s maneuverability either… the point is that you claimed the article suggested the US was looking at building an aircraft similar to the PAK FA. What the article actually says is that essentially everything is on the table and they haven’t even decided for sure whether the aircraft will be manned or not and whether or not it will be a flying wing…
hopsalotHahahah!! Sorry if I find this amusing. But read that article closer again.
-More range and payload: Check
-Supersonic and more manuverability: check
-A larger design: checkThats PakFa right there.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
That means thinking outside the box about what the definition of a fighter might be. In the classic sense, a fighter is a short-range jet capable of flying at 9Gs, with a single seat, he says. The ECCT is emphasising range and payload, but the platform may not require 9Gs. Unlike most fighters, the PCA will not be short-range, but what space the aircraft will fit into will depend on cost and how the platform fits into the USAF’s tanker fleet. The air force also wants a stealthy signature for survivability, but also a speedy, manoeuvrable platform, he says.
…
Whether the PCA follows a traditional fighter model or a flying wing design will come later in the USAF’s analysis, but the service is putting a premium on a long-range platform with a large magazine capacity that would prove highly lethal.
“On the lethality side, obviously the dream would be to have something with an unlimited magazine, something [like] directed energy type capabilities,” he says. “Is that going to be something that we can mature on the timelines we’re talking about? Maybe, maybe not, but whenever we get it, we’d really like to be able to do something like that.”
Industry officials from Lockheed Martin to Northrop Grumman have lauded directed energy’s ability to provide a deep, almost unlimited, magazine. But that could remain a dream right now for Grynkewich, as airborne lasers continue to languish in laboratories. Still, the platform’s timeline would not wait for those capabilities to debut. In order to stay on PCA’s timeline, the USAF could load smaller, improved missiles onto the aircraft or design the platform to carry more missiles, he says.”
This says nothing at all about “more manuverability.” (More than what? Under what conditions?) If anything it is quite clear that they are questioning exactly how much maneuverability and speed they really need. A flying wing design is not conducive to extreme speed or maneuverability.
It does say the aircraft might get larger and that longer range is a major consideration, but that is hardly synonymous with “PAK FA.”
If indeed the study ends up going with a directed energy weapon there would be essentially zero point to pursuing PAK FA style low-speed maneuverability.
And what ever happend with the traditional dogfight capability being something from the past, not future!?
Something i’ve been reading from you guys the last 6 years, when the F-35 KPP became known.
Who said anything about dogfighting? Read the article again, slowly. Ask questions about the parts that aren’t clear to you.
hopsalotyou, among other F-35 advocates, spent a good amount of your time claiming how anything not stealthy (read: anything not F-35) was thing of the past no matter what, and would be dead meat in combat from now on.. “now” being already a couple of years ago today…
yet, today, you tell us that using F-15s for several decades from now (design that flew in early 70’s) is normal…
If you want to quote me, find the quote. Don’t attribute cartoonishly misstated opinions to me.
Moving forward stealth is an absolutely critical attribute for new designs. That said, there are still Mig-21s and F-5s flying around. Are they suited for use against a cutting-edge threat? Of course not… but that doesn’t mean they don’t remain useful.
The F-15 is a big airframe that can carry a lot of stuff a long way. It also affords a great deal of space for a large radar, etc. It isn’t an aircraft you would want to take into the highest threat areas, but once outfitted with a shiny new GaN EW suite, a new AESA, and a new IRST it will remain relevant both by providing numbers and in a supporting role to the F-22/35.
The same applies to aircraft like the Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-35, etc. Nobody is going to throw away a bunch of brand new aircraft just because they aren’t state of the art anymore. (and like the F-15/16, they are still producing them even…)
hopsalotI took this post from March 2015:
*Originally Posted by*obligatory*It’s safe to say those F-15C will provide cover for F-35 and not the other way around,
F-35 is for A2G workSpudmanWP:
After 2025, in denied environments.. put the bottle down
The F-35 is a multi-role fighter and will be tasked with both air to air and air to ground missions. This really isn’t that complicated… unless of course you want it to be.
hopsalotI question the capabilities(block) for F-35, not that it has IOC or not.
The capability is delayed by many years.Anyway, something new and interesting;
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/air-force-wants-next-generation-fighter.html?m=1I could have swear some of the PCA required capability is in fact the PakFa with its new engines.. correct me if i’m wrong.
Required capability in what sense?
Presumably the PAK FA, J-20, and J-31, along with the latest Russian and Chinese SAMs will be the main threats the PCA aircraft/system will be designed to defeat…
hopsalotShh.. don’t ruin the glittering fasade of the 5th gen fighter jets deployment. Nothing to see here, moving on!
On a more seriously note, perhaps, this is a necessity that has emerged over the last eight years cause of the F-35 program, and there is simply no other choice.
Oh! And where are those foul comments on the A-10 delayed retirements.. they even blamed the A-10 extended deployment on F-35 program setbacks.Now its F-15C/D/E turn i guess.
This sort of trolling is totally unnecessary. The F-35 was never slated to replace any F-15. The F-15Cs are staying in service because the USAF didn’t buy enough F-22s. The F-15Es were always planned to stay in service a long time longer. (And were designed from the start with an extremely long airframe life)
hopsalothow can F-15C be at the forefront to 2045 with the largest RCS next to Flanker ?
By contributing numbers against second tier forces and acting as a flying magazine against first tier forces. Consider that various 4th generation fighters are still being manufactured around the world.
hopsalotI think I will have a double nightmare this night thinking about it.
You spend a lot of time dreaming about US politics?
hopsalotI replied you in PM as keeping on this would there would risk to derail thread further.
Plus you were looking rather silly…
hopsalotDidn’t Andraxxus proved that photo is BS with his calculations not so long ago?
You don’t need any calculations to recognize that diagram is BS.
If it were accurate an F-15 can’t pull more than 5Gs above ~M.8. (Or that an F-22 can’t pull more than 5Gs at 30k ft at ~M1.5… but inexplicably can do so at 60k ft… )
hopsalotThe other helicopter was already starting to lift off the ground before the first explosion. The second lower explosion sound seems to be the return sound from the visual explosion,
So the first sound would be the planted explosives going off (next to fuel tanks) and the visual explosion (and second explosive sound) would be the fuel igniting. The resulting heat provided a distraction for tow missiles and the second helicopter in the air stirred up dust to help mask the escape as well as flares for when the two vehicles started moving.
IMHO the destruction of the helicopter and the getaway was very professionally executed (after playing the video back frame by frame quite a few times that is 😉 ).
Seriously though…
hopsalotFrom what I heard, it was Russian special forces planting explosives on the helo.
Why would the TOW operator target the broken helo instead of the live one? Or any of the vehicles?
And the Russian MoD website says it was an emergency landing, not a shootdown.
If I were setting explosives to destroy a helo that had to be abandoned, I would set the timer to go off -after- I had gotten off the ground in the other helo…
(also, those guys on the ground around the helo sure didn’t look like they were expecting it to explode)
hopsalotif you refer to AESA wielding EF, then EF has a better chance of detecting the target, tracking it, launching against it
They have similarly sized radars, and F-35s with AESAs actually exist…
The point is that a longer ranged weapon plays to the F-35’s strengths… it can already strike from longer ranges than it can be detected. With meteor it wouldn’t even be sporting.
hopsalotThe ‘Magic’ Behind Radar-Absorbing Materials For Stealthy Aircraft
So once again it seems the engineers and scientists who spent decades, not to mention billions of dollars, researching RCS reduction figured out a few things the fanboys (and Australian bloggers) hadn’t…
Sign In
