Hello Cola, i didn’t get directed to NASA, i ended up in a music/game advertising or something, can you help me out to NASA ?

Btw delta wings are superior in regards to high speed, drag and RCS and structual integrity, but inferior at slow speed handling, where canards wastly helps up.

Halo Obligatory.
Here’s a new link: http://www.2shared.com/file/6174352/2f19b9cf/NASA_Technical_Memorandum_80230.html < Checked and tested.
Dunno what happened with the last one. It’s the first time 2shared pulled a stunt like this one on me…

Anyway, inside you’ll find that even classic layout like F-15 rose from 1:1 kill ratio (plain F-15s) to about 9:1 for canard+TVCed F-15 vs. plain one, in maneuvering combat. Pilots also reported to being able to enter the merge with much higher errors (off boresight positions) and rectify that during fist turn, etc, etc,…and F-15 hasn’t been designed to fully exploit benefits of canard concept.
Well, it’s nothing new, but still an interesting reading.

Enjoy, Cola

It only shows that TVC can achieve the same (or more) as adding canards to a design that orignaly came without carnads.

No, not really.

Canard conception is, in aerodynamic terms, way more advanced than classic elevator layout (even Wright brothers had “canards”, remember? :)) However, in terms of stealth, US claimed canards to be “stealth uncooperative”, so ATF program came out without canards…
Now, as for the TVC, it kicks in at “post-stall” regimes of flight, but has no particular influence on “non-stall” (high g turning) flight. This is why non-TVCed Sukhoi was able to match its TVCed cousin.

However, canard conceived aircraft (with or without TVC) has the ability to exercise direct force control (DFC). Non canard aircraft can’t do that, no matter whether TVCed or not.

There’s a study by NASA from ’80s, conducted on a plain vs. canard+TVCed F15, which explains this topic, so check it out at http://www.2shared.com/file/6166477/ff63d87c/19940005093_1994005093.html

Kids, this is why having an education is important. Lest you turn out like these people. I’m dead serious.

AMEN

Problems as in more maintanace time.
The N-atlantic & Barent sea add to corrosion problems on our F-16 and P-3C’s.The Cold and ice make it more difficult to operate these units.

Exactly and this should be THE PRIME PREREQUISITE for future Norway’s combat airplane…what good is a plane if grounded.
The thing is, the Swedes live just “over the hill” and they certainly know operating conditions, well.

Not exactly sure as the data is still rather inconclusive, but it seems stealth aircraft has very high maintenance ratio. It’s said about 0.45/1 hour TBM for “stealth” and about 7 hours for Gripen. By comparison F-16 has 3/4 hours (depends on model) TBM.
Moreover, Gripen is advertised to perform even Level 3 maintenance (such as engine or damaged wing change) in non hangar conditions!

So, if the data for “stealth” is true, F35 has worryingly low pounds-per-hour delivery as well as air patrol saturation.

Cheers, Cola

Norway is a state oriented to the sea and so are its interests in aerial warfare. Even the latest trial flights were flown over the sea and Norway even has it’s own Penguin ASM.

Now, I saw a lot of critics of Gripen and praises of F35’s stealth…Ok…

In F35’s weapons clearance list there isn’t a single anti-ship missile (unlike Gripen).
Moreover, the only missile capable of attacking ships is StormShadow (variants) and this one CAN NOT be carried internally (according to official LM ordnance chart).
So, in order for an F35 to make attack runs against ships, it needs to carry external payload, thus giving up the stealth and that doesn’t put it in front of Gripen anymore.

Cheers, Cola

Problem is that you haven’t have the slightest idea and quote the numbers you found in your fanboy fighter book. Not very bright addition to the discussion.

In any useful mission the low-level penetrator is limited to below Mach 1. There may be a few exemptions like an F-111 carrying a single nuclear weapon, but for conventional strike, that’s the limit.

Me, a fan boy? ROFL, didn’t heard that one before…and what model would that be?

As for the numbers and quoting, you can actually “read” pretty much out of those numbers, if you know how, that is.
However, I agree with you in one thing.
Numbers are secondary to actual real life performance, indeed, but are essential in a discussion such as this one.
Since I don’t have either of those aircraft parked in my garage, I can’t make a claim on actual performances, so I must use figures published by officials.

It’s really amusing (in a sort of pathetic manner), how some of the guys here (especially “professionals”) handle the numbers and figures and manipulate them like they invented the physics itself, at least.
So, I apologize if I didn’t “brighten” the discussion, but I didn’t want to make a claim that lacks, at least, some measure of official argument backing.

Bottom line: This is I-net and everybody is a fighter pilot, right? (smarter guys are JUST flight controllers or mechanics :))
The only way to accept someone’s claims (pro ot not) is if those fit general principals and common knowledge. If they don’t, the guy is out, because he’s selling a “magic water”, for curing all sorts of illness and smart people should know better than buying it.

Warm regards, Cola 😀

It would probably ruin your day to find out that one of the best CAS airplanes over Afghanistan is the B-52. It carries lots of JDAMs and can loiter for hours so its there when the troops need it, not 20 minutes away like smaller airplanes.

Why would that ruin my day? I agree with you and I think B52 is an excellent plane and is further a point against F35’s “all-in-one” conception.

Cheers, Cola

@Scooter
@Cola
I think you misunderstood, i meant only the launching a/c can communicate with the missile, tho other assets can give the launching a/c co-ordinates.

Not that it makes much difference with a/c with datalinks like F-22 and Gripen, (and probably MiG-31) since their buddies info is superimposed on the launching a/c display,
so if and when a missile can get mid-course up-dates by another aircraft then the shooter won’t matter much for those a/c.
I doubt a missile in need of mid-course up-dates will be particularly successful in the first place.

Agreed.

I made my comment regarding separate “buying” of mid-course correction for AMRAAM.

@Sens

If the missile has been (mid) guided by beam reflections (default mode), it doesn’t matter which aircraft illuminates the target as long as its radar encoding match those allowed to guide the missile.
If the missile has been (mid) guided by radio link, the missile doesn’t have to receive any beam reflections, but is being guided by input of a flight vector calculated by guiding radar. It makes no difference whether the guiding radar is 1 meter or 10000 meters away from the missile, because the fire computer takes launch position and target position and calculate the trajectory and feed it to the missile via datalink. Those calculations must have been done by either way, even by launching aircraft if it wants to fire a missile in such a “slave” mode.

Cheers, Cola