Spitfire9If your aircraft hits 1000 degrees of AoA it is way past time to eject…
It isn’t likely that an F-35 will actually reach 50 AoA during any real world scenario but it does show once again that the F-35 is anything but the slow, unmaneuverable aircraft critics wish it were.
For comparison the Rafale is limited to 29 degrees AoA.
I was a gymnast once, so an AOA of 50 degrees or 29 degrees in the air is not that impressive to me. 180 or 360 was normal for me (also a lot more comfortable when you landed).
But back to less manoeuvrable things like aircraft, would a 50 degree angle of attack ever produce a tighter turn than a 10-30 degree AOA? If not, who cares about any AOA above that producing the tightest turn?
Spitfire9In the Austrian case several politicans from different regions tried to secure some of the offset orders when their position there did allow to have a personal benefit as well.
You mean that the politicians had a financial interest in the companies concerned? The politicians would make money if they could secure offset orders for those companies?
Just here the corruption starts, when an offset order was not an economical one for all to verify behind doubt. 😎
Yes, it would be interesting to see if the contracts awarded were genuine.
Spitfire9on another hand, standing at 50° AoA is pretty much useless anyway… even for maneuvering, you’re a sitting duck if you pull any similar amount of AoA.
The interesting thing is: what’s your lowest speed at which you can pull your maximum G and stay there (meaning, “turn in the tightest possible way”).
A nice, sensible, real question. 🙂 Who cares if you can hit 100 degrees AOA (or a 1000, 10,000 or whatever) unless it enhances the performance of the aircraft? On that tack, roughly after what point does a higher AOA never improve performance? After 20 degrees/30 degrees/40 degrees?
Spitfire9On a personal level, as long as you are not an U.S. citizen, or a permanent resident of the U.S.A., the travel restrictions regarding Cuba do not effect you. If you read through European travel agency catalogues you’ll find all kind of vacation arrangements there. But I guess if you have too many North Korean, Iranian, Cuban, and Venezuelian stamps in your passport the INS (sorry, ICE) might not let you in. Same with drugs and “moral turpitude”. Never forget that the DHS says that beyond the aircraft and before the INS counter you are in legal no-man’s land.
But talking about business, especially corruption and mergers and acquisition of “controling stakes” and such, not only the U.S. declare their laws to be “universal”. For example the Russian Federation now reserves the right to object to any such business transactions, regardless whether said transaction concerns Russia, or the companies involved even have a presence in the Russian Federation.
[Disclaimer: The above remarks are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. They are intended, but not promised or guaranteed to be current, complete, or up-to-date and should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and the receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. You should not act or rely on any information contained in this post without first seeking the advice of an attorney. blah blah blah]
The way it will turn out in Austria, is even in case some individual will be convicted of corruption and go to jail, the companies will say they paid that individual’s company for certain services. And if that individual used his money to do unsound things, it’s none of the company’s business or fault and they also never knew about it and are so totally shocked to learn of the moral turpitude of their now former business partner. The service and representation agreements are full of legal clauses making sure the companies stay clean.
Thanks for your informative reply…
[Disclaimer: The above remarks are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. They are intended, but not promised or guaranteed to be current, complete, or up-to-date and should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and the receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. You should not act or rely on any information contained in this post without first seeking the advice of an attorney. blah blah blah]
and your very apt disclaimer!
The service and representation agreements are full of legal clauses making sure the companies stay clean.]
No doubt. A bit like stinking of **** but having a document that declares that legally you don’t stink of **** so that when someone takes exception to the smell emanating from you, you can prove to them that you don’t smell at all!
I do so love the disconnect between law and reality.
I love the notion of “moral turpitude”, too. Ain’t got a clue what it means but it sounds like something I ought to try! 🙂
Spitfire9The more severe problem EADS might have with a conviction in Austria or Germany is the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act …
That would not be so good, agreed. Would that also implicate BaE Systems?
As a thought, you seem to be well up on things. I hold a British passport. Under British law I think I can visit any country in the world. Would you know if I chose to visit France, I would be committing an offence under US laws? Or Tahiti? Greenland? Russia? Japan? Jamaica? I only ask because I don’t like states that wish to dictate to humanity (the rest of world) what is/is not allowed.
I have been concerned for some time that my non-criminal conduct heretofore should become criminal should I wish to be free. And visit Cuba.
Spitfire9The comparable unit cost of Typhoon is somewhere south of £73m, let alone $120 m, and certainly no where near Spitfire9’s stupid figure of $300m.
I readily confess that my knowledge is limited. It does not extend to me knowing that Typhoon costs $300 million. That knowledge was imparted by another contributor.
No offence received, however.
Spitfire9Offset is not a corruption.
A corruption is a bribe paid to Austrian officials with the decision power to select the Typhoon over other jets.
The aviationweek report says this:
“Austria specified at the time of the tender that the supplier would have to guarantee counter-deals that would pour twice the value of the jet contract into the local economy through suppliers, related services or education projects.”
I appreciate that the corruption (if true) may have been initiated internally. But… but… but… let’s be a little realistic. The Austrian authority concerned would have negotiated deals to supply goods or services of a known nature.
If whichever Eurofighter entity involved with these deals arranged contracts/approved contracts with no clearly credible goods or services (something one can measure) being required and those goods or services were not supplied, then to me alarm bells should have started ringing very loudly.
Unless I seriously misunderstand offset, it means the buyer sells something to the supplier.
Spitfire9I have a few things to point out since this is the F-35 debate thread:
1. Why do people keep saying the Typhoon is a better value than the F-35?
The Typhoon costs more than a F-22 with less capability! No AESA yet, barely any A2G! No jamming!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/“This shows the acquisition cost of the Eurofighter/Typhoon in an even worse light than it had previously appeared, when an RAF fleet of 160 had been expected. It is now acknowledged that the development and production cost to the UK of Eurofighter will be £23bn with planned upgrades.
This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that’s $350m at today’s rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters”
The F-35 is 120 Mill in upcoming lots the Tiffy is 300+ million!
[/B]
I think the £23bn is the cost of the entire program. If you divide that cost by the number of aircraft delivered at any time, the cost changes every time another aircraft is delivered. You could say that the first Typoon cost £23bn or the first 2 cost £11.5bn each, or the first 3 £7bn+ each. It is as meaningless as saying 107 cost £215m each. Since the RAF should receive 200+ Typhoons, the figure should be less than £120m per Typhoon.
The F-35 is 120 Mill in upcoming lots the Tiffy is 300+ million!
IIRC the contract price for the last lot of Typhoons was less than £60m each (say $90m). That is quite a lot less than the $120m cost you give for F-35.
And remind me please, if you know, is the F-35 figure for an aircraft with an engine or do we have to add the cost of the engine to the $120m to get a real price?
Spitfire9“The shaping of the T-50 is inferior to that of the F-22 Raptor,” Kopp writes in his dense, jargon-heavy report. But the F-35 and T-50, he adds, exhibit “similar … RCS behavior.”
But Kopp’s assessment of the T-50 comes with caveats. Quite a few of them, actually. To match the stealthiness of the Lockheed Martin F-35 — to say nothing of the company’s F-22 — Sukhoi’s engineers will have to, among other changes, modify the T-50′s engines to a less obtrusive fitting and add a layer of radar-absorbing material to the plane’s skin.
With the revised engines and skin, the T-50′s “specular RCS performance will satisfy the Very Low Observable (VLO) requirement that strong specular returns are absent in the nose sector angular domain,” Kopp writes. Translated into plain English, Kopp’s saying that an optimized version of the Russian jet could be very, very difficult to detect by most radars as it’s bearing down on them.
Translated into even simpler English that the likes of me understand, the current version of the Russian jet is not very, very difficult to detect by most radars as it’s bearing down on them.
Spitfire9http://nbiz.heraldcorp.com/view.php?ud=20121114000366
Lockheed Martin executives strongly urged the Korean government to delay the fighter jet selection by several years, saying that the F-35 gets cheaper in each passing year during a press conference held on November 13th.
This comes as an indirect confirmation from Lockheed that they are indeed running at the last place in the race as leaked by press earlier(The Silent Eagle and the Typhoon are running neck to neck), and Lockheed would rather delay the announcement of outcome than to accept the defeat which would have a decisively negative consequence for the F-35 as the JSF partners are rethinking their F-35 purchases and contemplating a bailout.
The numbers will dictate, I think. If LM is suggesting that South Korea should delay ordering because the F-35 would be very expensive if ordered for delivery soon, I hope they have the good manners to suggest to F-35 partners that they should do the same.
I believe (and it has been my position for a number of years) that this aircraft will be a body blow to the overall defence capability of non-US customers.
Edit: with the exception of Norway which has very, very deep pockets
Spitfire9That depend entirely on context, i.e what you are comparing to,
and also at what speed & altitude.
It is safe to say F-22/Eurocanards with negative stability & lower wing loading
is more agile at supersonic speeds & high alt. than F-16
At the time it was designed, I presume that F-16 was not seen as a flying brick. As you say, it’s comparative. The more agile designs that appeared after F-16 was designed did not make the F-16 any less agile per se.
Spitfire9Earing a first million is always difficult after that you know the secret.
My bet is on AMCA no matter what difficulty Tajas had or have, AMCA will be a smooth run
What reason do you have to say “no matter what difficulty Tajas had or have, AMCA will be a smooth run”? Do you say that because AMCA is an Indian project? Tejas has not had a smooth run. Unless much is changed in terms of setting goals and resourcing and managing the project, I think AMCA will encounter many problems and will certainly not have a smooth run.
Spitfire9To me, if it cannot take off, break mach using however much AB you please, and then sustain speeds > mach without afterburner until you run out of gas, then it cannot supercruise by the letter of the definition.
Exactly. If it cannot sustain supersonic speed without afterburner, it ain’t supercruising. How it got to be supersonic in the first place is irrelevant.
Spitfire9Anyway I have a question, do you think that in case of a deal with the Emirates, the 60 aircrafts would be diverted from TR3A ordered by the other partners?
If… if… if this ever comes to something, all the frames for export to a customer would be assembled in just one partner country, wouldn’t they? The other partners countries, therefore, would not be able to divert from their tranche 3A, would they?
Of course, they could change the way that exports are handled.
Spitfire9Just for the record:
Canada launches review into F/A-18 fighter replacement
Canada has initiated an independent assessment into the acquisition process used to replace its air force fleet of Boeing F/A-18 combat aircraft, which has so far favoured the purchase of Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.
Sign In
