Stable? You should at least try to get facts correct, or you look utterly stupid.
Why wouldn’t F35 be as stable as F22 ?
So you now you’ve become a conspiracy theorist? These are Viper and Hornet pilots who now fly F-35 telling us about the performance and comparing
them with the legacy fighters they used to fly. All you got is a leftwing site from a big time lefty hater (David Axe) that got its info from RT (RUSSIA TODAY)
From a unnamed pilot and that is good enough for you and the rest of the anti F-35 intelligentsia? LOl.I rather take the word from these pilots who actually fly the plane.
I just tested the turning rate in FSX at 10 000 ft and 20 000 ft….I saw 7 Gs and 518 kts constant speed in the FSX at 10 000 ft…with very lite ac…I first climbed to 30 000 ft and then did turning…at low speed it stalls pretty rapidly even at 4 G s.
Looks pretty ok to me. Roll rate is really good and able to fly on high alpha. The throttle is more important to be able to be used correctly than the stick..in this craft IMHO.
—-
edit: F-15 can turn harder at even at supersonic speeds ( at least at supersonic speeds ).
I cannot really comment on this…I am only expert in R/C Aircombat/Dogfight and MS FSX simulated flights with F-35 and 108 other aeroplane types…including the mighty F-22.
It is a bit like Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat…not as sleek as Spitfire or Mustang. C-model is totally different “beast” ( all three models are in FSX available ).
Possibly a bit more machine than an aeroplane in some sense…this is the impression.
Planes do crash sometimes…for one reason or another.
Swedes have a tradition of making planes.
Saab J21 was a head of its time.
“Attacking” a finnish powerplant here.
I actually like that idea, fast prop, optionally manned, like a fighter version of the NG Firebird
Firecontrol from a converted Gulfstream jet.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238590[/ATTACH]
How about just 400 of these…small agile like XF5…best flying quality AC ever by the scaled composites.
Quantity and quality would replace the shortcomings like radar.
:applause:
This might help. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Swedish language can translate what it says about the 24 pink, 10 green and 32 yellow examples.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238556[/ATTACH]
Isn’t there 5 dead Gripens so far ?
1-3 agreed. Not to mention that everything Finland dimensions its defense against is namely, Russia. Same with Sweden.
4. Gripen NG will not cost 43 million, agreed. But the reason as to why the Gripen BR has jumped up to 5.4 billion is because they’ve insisted on some special solutions such as the WAD. The Gripen E will be cheaper than the other Eurofighters, and the F-35 to purchase, operate and maintain throughout the years. The first Gripen E [39-8] will fly sometime soon and the first serial-produced 39E will fly in 17-18 depending on political decisions. Hardly a reason to look in another direction. Saab has previously mentioned that the Gripen production line can be ramped up depending on future demands quite significantly. But I think the Finns would rather be able to put up a local assembly line as Patria has done with the NH90. Good for the economy, good for security and as long as the F-18s still have hours, they can continue operation and gradually integrate the Gripens. By the time that the F-18’s have to be replaced, Gripen 39E will already have been thoroughly tested.
How is that relevant in any way to the discussion?
MIG 35 is one of the candidates.
Edit…no it maybe isn’t; http://vastavalkea.fi/2015/06/10/suomen-tuleva-havittajahankinta/
It is still a prototype.
Nonsense. How could little green men operate in Finland where there’s no local support and no safe border crossing? Russia could as well send the little green men to Texas..
Right the film RED DAWN is all about it !
I have to be honest here…MIG-29 actually seems to clock the fastest runs on my about 3 minutes from take off to land race track.
I wonder how much is it about a good programming by the polish experts ? T-45 Goshawk is 1 min 45 secs slower.
F8F-2 Bearcat is 2 min 15 secs slower. (H-1 racer 3:15 slower ).
Edit: Ok …now it got also FA-18 to 2:45 for the race track.
to get back on topic, I’d like to reiterate my main points
1) Finland does not require a new fighter jet, because it doesn’t face a short term military threat
as things stand, Russia is no position to pose a danger to Finland, because Finland would receive immediate and unconditional support from Europe and the US
Russia would feel a huge economic backlash, and also simply has no reason to attack Finland: despite the sanctions Russia is building a nuclear powerplant for Finland
if anything Russia is more likely to be an ally to Finland in any conflict than an enemy2) Finland does not have a history of engaging in offensive air campaigns, for example it did not participate in the attack on Libya
participating in any future conflicts (over say Syria) also makes it likely that Finland would come into direction conflict with Russia, something I don’t think it would be willing to do, as Finnish companies seek to restore economic ties to Russia3) if Finland does insist on buying a new fighter jet, it will be better to wait a bit longer, as the next evolution of aircraft (UCAVs) is right around the corner
we’ve seen a major evolution in military aircraft technology, it’s become more powerful and reliable
the time were it was all about the pilot’s skill is becoming a thing of the past, now it’s about how good the technology is
even for dogfighting, cannons are radar-aimed, and between superior missiles like the IRIS-T and Python 5 and soon lasers, WVR combat becomes suicide as technology make attacks increasingly impossible to block or dodgeas such air forces will have to adapt or die. and difficult as it is to accept, there will be little place for human pilots in that dangerous future
so I think Russia should wait, and certainly not waste its money on the flying question mark that is the $124 milion (price Japan agreed to in 2013) F-35
then it’s better off buying the very capable Gripen NG at $43 million (price the Swedish air force is paying for them)
Rosatom is involved in the nukelar plant in Hanhikivi…so far 100 mio worth rocks have been cleared and roads built. The french company that built the plant in near Helsinki went so far above the budget (3x ) that that there wont be a third plant as was planned.
Yes and an Gripen NG is one possibility.
I don’t think our jockeys wanna fly drones.
AF has said it buys no test phase planes…so NG better be ready soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwb7QkMiyYQ
I see one thing here that is better than in Rafale; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBkXG-eVOo
No, but its below F-15, similar to F-4
http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf
F-22 top out at M1.75 at 35.000 ft, and it looks like F-35 touches M1 at 25.000 ft, albeit with only two AAM’s.
We also see that F-22 has twice the turn rate, 50% higher speed, and 40% greater engagement range vis a vis F-35,
with greater Pk, thanks to speed.Acceleration from Mach 0.8 to 1.2 is stated to be around 60 seconds for the F-35A
http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/comment-page-1/
The link did not work but seems like F-22 is an exceptional in its turnin rate etc. How would it fare with Rafale ? In MS FSX the Rafale has exceptional acceleration.
rubbish, afterburner is being used to achieve best possible launch parameters,
but even that isnt good enuff to reach acceptable parameters vs higher performer.
Secondly, it isnt humans that are the limit at medium to high alt., its the machines,
certainly F-35 wing load is the limiting factor
Do you have this graph for F35 ?
This is a feisty little beast…I clocked same time for a small 3 minute flite with take off and landing time from point A to B for Rafale, F 22 and F 35 and F-18 in MS FSX ?!
If the russkies have picked up anything at all of the american way of waging war,
the first thing to go is airfields & early warning,
i would focus on bistatic radars, passive MR SAM, and either F-35B or Gripen, to force complications/cost
I have a hunch the FAF would not let that happen..nor our AAA. They could try to do it american way.
Russian way is to organize free elections and then annex the country. That cannot happen in Finland since all the russkies in Finland would like to annex Russia into Finland.
if Russia doesn’t attack, and that’s enough to patrol Finland’s skies, then yes
Russia might attack, but then so might alien from another dimension. then Finland needs to start building starships and phasers
Fins realise this all too well btw, they even made a movie about it
http://www.starwreck.com/
Star Wreck and Iron Sky is headed by a finn, but I figure it is international consortium.