hopsalotI am not evading anything, there must be some misunderstanding.. The report mentions a 5.2g turn at M0.9 speed and then, at lower speed the AoA limit which prevents the aircraft from reaching the hard 5.5g limit.. During the latter, the airspeed has decayed from 330 to 200kt.
How is that inferior to the F-35A currently limited at 4.6g?
Even by your standards this is a sad showing.
It is hard to imagine another still simpler explanation will work when the several previous ones failed… but here we go again.
The difference between a sustained turn and an instantaneous turn is that in a sustained turn the aircraft is maintaining its speed and altitude while an instantaneous turn allows for the possibility that the aircraft is bleeding speed, altitude, or both.
Confusing the two is like saying that a Rafale can fly at M1.8 in dry thrust… all it has to do is accelerate to M1.8, and turn off the afterburners…. and briefly the plane will be flying at M1.8 in dry thrust, while losing energy of course.
The maneuvers performed by the reporter in the Rafale were not sustained turns as the aircraft was bleeding energy. You can’t compare an instantaneous G load at one altitude to a sustained turn at a completely different altitude with a completely different load.
Just give it up, there is no possible way to talk your way out of this.
hopsalotIt’s easy.. You can disprove him by providing your own figures.. Ideally confirmed by sources.. If you can’t do that, then you don’t know any better than himself..
Picard’s blog was only one of the sources.. There is that Korean article which you conveniently omit..
The joke is that I don’t have to.. There are no positive news about the F-35, apart the usual yada yada about how ergonomic the cockpit is, how it can exchange information and how cool the helmet is. All the report are so identical that I suspect they were already written beforehand….
Well, of course the F-35 is ergonomic, has large displays, HOTAS and whatnot and it even has datalinks with much greater data throughput than the F-18.. Freaking big deal, it’s two decades newer.. Still fail to see how is that a game changer in any way.. It still can’t fly, can’t turn, can’t evade, can’t disengage, can’t climb and can’t dogfight.. That is what makes an aircraft a viable platform to hang your bling on.. As for the F-35, any fighter coming within the next two decades, Russian, Chinese, Korean or Japanese, will likely make mincemeat out of it.
The F-35 will have an RCS less than 1/100th that of the PAK FA or J-20, and across a frequency range 10x wider. Prove me wrong! :stupid:
Picard has no sources. Nobody needs to prove him wrong. If he can’t support it then it isn’t our job to disprove it.
Even so…
With regard to this claim of his:
In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.
The test configuration included three 2,000litre (530USgal) fuel tanks, two SCALP cruise missiles weighing 1,300kg (2,860lb) each and four Mica fire-and-forget air-to-air missiles. For a small aircraft such as the Rafale, this is a heavy load – but one that promises to allow a thorough evaluation of the aircraft’s flight control system and performance.
…
At top of climb, the autopilot levelled the aircraft smoothly at the pre-set altitude of 25,000ft. Visibility through the canopy across southern France was superb. The canopy is covered by a gold film to make it opaque to radar energy (and thereby reduce the aircraft’s radar signature). This coating gave the effect of looking at the world through pale sunglasses.
At a typical cruise speed of M0.82/347kt, the aircraft could sustain a 60º banked turn at maximum dry power. Slamming the throttle to maximum reheat and rolling quickly into a full stick-back hard turn to simulate a break away from a threat gave a rapid response, automatically limited initially to 18.8º alpha and 4g. As the turn progressed, the FCS allowed the incidence to increase to 19.2¼ alpha as the airspeed decayed. Again, I was impressed with how easy it was to extract the maximum performance from this heavily loaded aircraft.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-ready-53125/
So here we see conclusively that a Rafale with the exact same load, was not only limited to a 4G turn by the flight control system, but even then the airspeed was decaying proving beyond a doubt that a 4G turn was not a “sustained” turn.
We could go on forever, but of course that is what you would like isn’t it? Anything to try to distract from the many many credible positive reports that have been coming out about the F-35. Much better to cite the sourceless wordpress blog of some French fanboy. :highly_amused:
hopsalotThat’s what I understood also.
I am sure pretty much everyone here did…
hopsalotIf they are building the new doctrine based on 100-200m runways while buying F-35A, then they are completely ignorant, that is correct..
Or they are considering buying some F-35Bs obviously.
hopsalotExcellent post Vnomad. Thank you for sharing.
I particularly like the emphasis put on the strategical meanings of having such platform. Pedantically speaking, It’s great that they didn’t miss this primordial aspect. Even in a press report.
I guess we can add the Israelis to the list of people who can only be shills, liars, or ignorant of modern jets.
hopsalotI don’t care.. His reference to Rafale is in no way related to the article in question [about the F-35]..
BTW, if you can disprove his figures, then I am all ears..
Let me explain something basic, since it seems necessary once again…
There are people who have actual first hand information, such as a pilot who has actually flown a plane. These people can speak from a position of authority.
Then there is everyone else. These people need either sources or at a minimum some awfully solid reasoning.
Picard has no first hand information, nor does he provide sources or reasoning, thus there is no need to disprove anything he chooses to post on his blog.
That which can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
He is just some random guy who posts stuff he makes up on a blog.
hopsalotJust for the fun of it..
The Su-35S was first quoted with a dual or two prossessors units, if one crash/fail or get damage its onboard systems will still work. Its one open architect design where you just remove the unit and install a new one. I also read somwhere that the Su-35S got newer more powerfull prossessors after the initial serial batches that got recalled to factory for upgrade.
So what would be interesting is what kind of specs it has, it is a product of late 2014-16..
If they are making the processors in Russia I wouldn’t expect much. Microprocessor design and production is not an area where Russia is even slightly competitive.
In early 2014, the Moscow Center of SPARC Technologies (MCST) launched a test production of Elbrus-8C eight-core processors (topology 28 nm, proprietary 64-bit architecture, clock speed 3.3 GHz, computation capacity 250 GFlops). Its development began in 2011 on a commission from the Industry and Trade Ministry, which has invested $24.4 million in the project.
The manufacturers promise to produce around 300 Elbrus-8C microchips by the end of 2014. In future, MCST intends to produce servers, workstations and telecom equipment based on its microchips. Elbrus-8C is the first eight-core processor to be made by a Russian company.
…
“Elbrus-8C microchips will be made abroad. In Russia, there is no technological capacity for that. Our microprocessors will be manufactured by Taiwan’s TSMC,” Trushkin said in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper.
So basically as of the timeframe you are talking about Russia was hoping to produce a tiny handful of obsolete chips… in Taiwan… and this was considered newsworthy progress.
hopsalotAgain, the same tired rhyme.. “Picard speaks nonsense.. Don’t ask me why, I just don’t like the guy”.. “Kopp has an agenda and speaks nonsense.. I, too, don’t like him”..
No single example of where exactly were they proven wrong or caught red handed, NOTHING.A classic example of disregarding a source because it obviously does not fit YOUR OWN agenda. Case closed for me..
Ah yes, ignoring actual fighter pilots from the US, Australia, Norway, Canada, and the Netherlands in favor of a random guy with a wordpress blog and an internationally famous troll with a blog he calls a “think tank,” neither of which have ever had even the slightest access to the F-35.
MSphere logic… :rolleyes:
hopsalotThat confirms what I said. The sensors and datalinks are not built by LM, any aircraft would have had the same hardware. Same for the helmet. The only thing that LM got right without an astronomical number of problems is the stealth. LM has very advanced stealth coating, but companies like NG or Boeing may well have the same kind of stuff. European companies are probably behind wrt to stealth coating, that’s about it. The fact that we see new 5th gen planes appearing around the world with stealthy shapes goes to show that building the airframe is not the problem.
Stealth is not about some “coating.” You can’t paint stealth onto an older fighter. Stealth has to be incorporated from the start into every aspect of the aircraft, from its airframe, to its avionics, to its software, to its engine.
It is true that in many cases you could retrofit newer avionics into an old fighter, but real fighter jets are not Legos. You can’t just yank off one piece and install a better one. New avionics entail weight, cooling, power, networking, computer/software changes. So while you could hypothetically take a Rafale’s avionics and drop them into an F-4, actually doing so would be such an extensive redesign that you might as well start with a new jet, especially once you consider that the F-4’s airframe is obsolete.
It is the same story comparing 4th generation fighters to the F-35. You could hypothetically drop F-35 level avionics into an older fighter, but it would be hugely expensive and difficult and once you were done you would still have a non-stealthy airframe that simply couldn’t be used like an F-35.
hopsalotComing from 4th gen planes that have to be replaced because they are long in the tooth, it is normal that the pilots are impressed by some of the characteristics of the F-35, like the stealth, sensors, sensor fusion and network capabilities. But they would be every bit as impressed if it were another plane with better speed, range, ability to have WVR carried inside, etc…
Andrew Jackson has flown Australian Super Hornets, so no, not old 4th generation planes about to be replaced, but brand new 4.5 Gen jets.
AUSTRALIA’S first fully qualified F-35 Lightning pilot admits this controversial new aircraft takes his breath away.
SQUADRON Leader Andrew Jackson, 37, started out flying elderly Macchi jet trainers, then graduated to the RAAF’s classic Hornets and Super Hornets.
Since January, he’s been learning to fly the advanced new F-35, making his first flight in January and now qualifying to fly F-35s and also to instruct new RAAF F-35 pilots.…
Squadron leader Jackson said the F-35 isn’t that different to flying a classic Hornet or Super Hornet.
What’s very different is the aircraft’s advanced radar and other sensors which gather information and present it to the pilot in a manner unlike any earlier aircraft.
“It just makes for a very different experience. You are now looking at the overall battlespace. You have a much greater picture of what’s going on outside your aeroplane than you ever did flying a legacy type,” he said.
So I guess we know that US, Australian, Dutch, Norwegian, and Canadian pilots are all shills and/or liars. That or they just don’t know nearly as much about fighter jets as fankiddies on a messageboard who have seen pictures of many fighter cockpits.
hopsalotLet me guess, those “reputable” sources are those with the “right” opinion about your beloved pet..
There is a whole large world beyond the Code One mag, you know…
Still struggling with the concept I see… This isn’t about what they are saying, this is about whether the person/source providing the information both knows what they are talking about and can be trusted to tell the truth.
The F-35 is a huge program and a correspondingly huge variety of sources are available on it. We have had a number of accounts of its performance and features from American, Canadian, Dutch, Norwegian, etc, pilots. These are people who actually know what they are talking about and are giving candid descriptions of its capabilities.
You meanwhile resort of wordpress blogs of people that aren’t considered knowledgeable by message board standards…
hopsaloti cant believe someone still take Picard serious
In every race there is someone bringing up the rear…
It should be no surprise that the same posters who continually resort to conspiracy theories and sloppy reasoning are the ones who can’t distinguish a reputable source from some random guy’s wordpress blog.
hopsalothahaha
Leonardo da Vinci’s work was fictional. he was a genius that was limited by the technology of his time
Fuller and Liddell Hart’s work was fictional, when they conceptualised what later became Blitzkrieg tactics. the technology was there, but no one was willing to try itthe technology Plummer is proposing is achievable today, has already been created, or will be created soon
while the tactics he is proposing will be effective and feasable
in essence Plummer has invented the new tank and the Blitzkrieg tactics to go with themmost people will fail to understand this, and think of such idea’s as absurd and delusional
but then most people are complete idiots
The guy is a regular old nut, and not an insightful one at that.
He writes ridiculously long-winded acronym and buzzword laden posts that upon dissection are nothing more than standard fankiddy level daydreaming.
hopsalotIn what way doesn’t it ?
You may not have heard, but the UK and the US are two different countries…
hopsalotSo.. the ROKAF picked the F-15 because of Washington political pressure and then unpicked the F-15 because of Washington political pressure?
I thought everything happened because of Lockheed bribes… why would Washington exert political pressure when Lockheed could just bribe Korea to first pick the F-15, and then later unpick the F-15… :confused:
Sign In
