Hm…don’t know either, but I’m pretty positive that, IF stealth proves to be effective as advertised, the solution will be found very quickly. After all, it’s much easier and cheaper to procure than super-modern stealth aircraft.

Check: http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Rus-VHF-Radar-2008.pdf

Cheers, Cola

You get propulsion by spweing out Z mass air-fuel mix and multiply it with Y velocity, that will propulse the a/c in the other direction with the same ZxY.
It is easier/more efficient to accelerate a large mass to a low velocity then a small mass to high velocity so that’s the preffered way.
But lets say the jet has a velocity of 2000 km/h, then the aircraft can never get any faster then that, the only way to go faster is to accelerate a smaller mass to a higher velocity, tho at the cost of both acceleration and efficiency.

So it will depend on jet velocity and bypass, and naturally, DRAG in all shapes, FCS/shaping and lift induced depending on weight etc.

Excellent, obligatory! This is some solid knowledge (not “Mr.Beasly said” type :))

All I have to add is F119 has bypass ratio ~0.2:1 and F-15’s engines has ~0.77 to 0.85:1, though I’m not sure what impact will this statement have in nuB-Landia…

Cheers, Cola

First Eufi to ever land in Croatia..>and the pilot forgot to lock the plane! :D:D:D
No wonder, cause ground guys immediately put food and drink on the table 😀

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZC_L2Y6NlI&NR=1

Enjoy, Cola

LOL, Scooter.
You obviously don’t have a faintest idea of what are you talking about. Engine technology, aerodynamics, sensors…all those areas are clearly a mystery to you.
I mean, I really admire your conviction in F-35’s program success (don’t get me wrong, I hope for it to succeed too) and you are obviously one of the F35’s hardcore fanboys, but maintaining your present course and “blindly” keeping to the facts that doesn’t hold water, is in fact counter productive.
Do you really think that Norway (or any other country) will buy F35, just because you go around forum(s?) and talk nonsense (I’m being VERY polite now)??? Wake up.
THE ONLY WAY for the F35 to get rid of its problems is if those problems get recognized and then solved in the most efficient manner, even if that means going back to the drawing board. So far LM didn’t do a good job and you obviously can’t (OR WON’T) see it. There’s so much arguments in favor of that, that citing them is pointless.
So, you should really question your approach to other people’s (valid) arguments, or some day, when enough people get sick of you, you’ll remain all alone and no one will even bother to reply to your posts.

Man, YOU ARE bacoming the very same Dr.Kopp, whom you detest so much…

Get smart, grow up, best wishes Cola

Yes well, put F119 in F-15 and watch what happens…
Now, I’m not saying stealth doesn’t have its advantages, but outright performance isn’t one of them…If both F22 and F35 weren’t stealth, they’d have much better performance.

Why is this so hard to accept?

Cheers, Cola

Ok guys, I think there’s no need to involve F-15 in this whole mess.
F-15 been optimized for high performance and it’s really hard to beat even today.
Not sure who exactly said it, but to claim the stealth duo (F22 and F35) have “excellent” aerodynamics is at best, odd (and I’m being polite here :D). It’s obvious that both F22 and F35 payed a toll to stealth layout and therefore loosed much of their potential performance. This is so true that F35 needed to be redesigned (as opposed to X35), to actually gain some performance at the cost of stealth (check X35 nd F35 ventral fuselage, for exmaple).

Now, F-15 can reach M2.5 with installed thrust of ~22,000 kg. F22 at dry power ~26,000 kg of thrust flies M1.72 ! ! ! and at AB~32,000 kg, M2.42

These are the facts and as such doesn’t need proving (and are “admitted” by USAF) and I fail to see, why has permanently been omitted or overlooked. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that smooth plane moves through the air easier than sharp one?!

Cheers, Cola

glitter, Scooter, thx for clarification. Others, plz read before posting 😀

Loke, well I hoped that too, but when i saw a direct Sparrow (40kg warhead) hit at a drone…well it wasn’t a pretty sight. As I said, the chance of pilot survival is next to none :(. Similar thing is with Gripen. I suppose Rafale is in somewhat better position, being larger and twin engined.
However, I saw a direct hit by Sparrow (same warhead) at a Phantom. Ok, Phantom got wiped out of the sky, BUT the crew compartment remained intact and I guess both crewmen would have successfully ejected, if they were in the plane (it was a QF-4).
As for near misses (and that’s majority of hits indeed), larger mass is in the advantage again…I think it’s wrong to assume the pilot is brainless machine which is trained to do “its” job, but morale, in this case insecurity in your own plane, may well play important role in the air (historically proven).

Cheers, Cola

Well guys, my question surely revealed some interesting constructions and thumbs up for creativity.
However, if you read carefully (as some of you pointed out :)), you’ll notice one important detail that makes this firing the unique one, indeed.

>>The two aircraft were members of two different air forces, Spanish and UK<<

Now, all this interoperability the USAF promotes is great and USAF fighters can do the same, but those are from the same AF!
Although two combat aircraft are “on the paper” the same, in reality they have been customized as much as possible (example, Turkey and Greece F-16), especially in terms of onboard avionics and EW suite (This is why UK insisted on acquiring F35’s source code).
Today, we constantly witness “autogoals” among same force, let alone allies. Can’t remember exactly when, but I red one more than a few occasions about problems with IFF kits failing to do their job, from Afganistan to Iraq…

Data link (like the one in the article) is highly protected and I imagine it took a considerable effort to match two systems from different air forces.

Cheers, Cola