dark light
Airliner World
Combat Aircraft
AeroPlane
Flypast
Airforces
Aviation
Pcpilot
Air

pricobelli

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 15, 2014 at 4:50 pm in reply to: stupid question #2287848
    pricobelli
    Participant

    Let me ask you something… How long do you think it would take to offer your “open design” fighter? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? Now when is it needed? If the answer is less than 10 years, then good luck!!! It’s not to say that the concept is worthless (Gripen is living proof of that), but you seem to misunderstand the complexity of the task. Hence the practical answers that have already been provided to you:
    JF-17
    Kai T-50
    Gripen

    No, really, I get that. I know it is a very complex task to do what Im asking… (keep in mind that the thread is called “stupid question”). And Im very aware that is (very) probably that Im missiing something.
    perhaps, the living proof that the fighters you named are not exactly what Im looking, is that no one has replaced legacy fighters, specially on low budget AFs… (well, except brasil…). JF17, is just used just by pakistan (its co designer, who can they not use it?), same goes for T50 (actually, t50 is not used by Korea… just the A50). Grippen has just get its first sale contract (SA is a leasing), and in order to do that, it have to become some sort of a “open fighter” with lots of locally developed systems. (lets see that…)
    thanks for all the replies!!

    July 15, 2014 at 11:42 am in reply to: stupid question #2287948
    pricobelli
    Participant

    JF-17
    T-50
    Gripen
    Tejas

    … how many more do you want?

    Yes… you are right…ish.
    From the list you wrote, I would agree about the JF17. Nor Pakistan or China have the knowledge to develop state of the art avionics, so they design it open enough so, customers can personalize to its taste. Any way, I think it is undepowered for a first line fighter. But it could be the one…
    T50, I think it is mainly designed as a training aifcraft or light atack, so it wount be able to receive specialized avionics without further modifications. Besides, its structure is not capable to sustain hi Gs load (again, it is a training design).
    Gripen, as I wrote, is the most capable figter of the list. That being said, its main components are not able to change. It is a close design. Good one, but closed. Lets see how it goes for the Brasilean model….
    Tejas, as far as I know, it is a closed program, plagued with problems on its FBW system.

    What I tried to said, Is I think a well designed base figther is needed. I would like to see a company, offering a semi finished package (airframe, FBW sw, engine integration, and perhaps, engine options), so the customer can customize to its taste. This will help to reach the most specific requierements, and develop its industries. I do not plane to give up any capabilities. On the contrarie, to be open to any capabilitie.

    F35… cammon guys… seriously??? They tried to rebump F16 original spirit, but I think they failed big….

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)