What the……….. (posted by =GT @ CDF)

It looks like they’ve built an entire building to simulate the carrier including its height above ground. The deck is at around tree top height. If they outfit it properly they should be able to practice with a deck crew so they’ll be ready when the real carrier sails.

I’m interested to know why Boeing doesn’t offer a tanker variant of the 787-8. The RFP requires the tankers to be in service for the next 40 years.

The KC-767 is hardly state of the art unlike the KC-135 when it entered service. They should offer the Pratt PW1000G or GEnx at the very least. Doesn’t the US want the best technology for the job. All this talk about propping up Boeing is like a bail-out mentallity. How are you guys going to keep up the leading super-power and tech-power status with that kinda attitude. Boeing should step up to the plate and offer something state of the art.

Inboard pylons

Posted by =GT & xinhui @ CDF:

Deino is no longer the sole J-10 fetish guy….:p:D

I’m in love with the J-10B

What’s on the inboard pylons? Are they EW pods?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:eek:
Dutch men are among the tallest in the world which causes a leg room problem in the JSF-cockpit

There is an easy solution for this, all future pilots for the JSF will be Dutch women. The men can fly the transports instead.

:D:D:D:D

Song class sub undetected by Carrier Battle Group

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811

A Song class sub got within torpedo range of the USS Kitty Hawk undetected during a US military exercise in the Pacific.

for those who say the Kfir is a complete clone of the Mirage III

hi,
Just wanted to comment on the pictures you provided. There was always the suspicion that the J-10 is a clone of the Lavi, but looking at the pictures provided, we can see that the aircraft are quite different.

First, the wing planform and the tail-fin’s profile are totally different. Next, the Lavi’s canards are more closely coupled. We can also see that the profile from the front is different. The J-10 in effect has a taller fuselage for the randome and radar. The forward fuselage cross-section has a rounder shape compared to the Lavi’s more ogive shape, similar to the F-16.

We also know that the J-10 is in a different weight and thrust class from the Lavi. This means that there must be significant engineering differences just from the different weight class and aerodynamics. The internal structure must be different just because the loads are in different places (different wing planform and not as close coupled), the flight control Laws must be different. The aerodynamics are different too because of the different nose profile and wing planform. The routing and inlet design for the engine must be different because of the different engine requirements.

Its too simple to just conclude that the J-10 is a Lavi clone.

Just wanted to comment that the Super Hornet’s aerodynamics is not as poor as everyone thinks.The wings do not have alot of sweep and look boring compared to canard deltas like the Typhoon or Rafale or aircraft with more sweep, e.g. F15, F22.

However, the wing planform allows for slow approach speeds at low angle of attack (suitable for carrier approach). It allows many pylons that can carry a wide range of external stores and unusual stores configuration (aircraft flies well with asymetric drag). The aircraft uses net-effect aerodynamics and computerized schedules for control surfaces and flaps/slats taking into account speed and other factors and this coupled with the LERX allows the aircraft to have good roll-rates and rapid changes in pitch into transonic and supersonic flight regimes. The LERX and wing combination is what makes the aircraft special, it creates lift and creates vortices that energize the wing and other control surfaces like the vertical and horizontal tail fins.

The aircraft is very clean aerodynamically and this allows for very quick acceleration from transonic to supersonic regimes. This also allows the aircraft to regain energy rapidly during WVR combat.

Another factor is the robust engine with technology from the GE YF120. The engines allow carefree handling, are tolerant of large and rapid changes in throttle and have rapid spool up rates from idle to military power (suitable for carrier approach and patterns).

The airframe and engine are designed for low maintenance. The comprehensive electronics suite is much better than its contemporaries, e.g. F22, Typhoon, Rafale in terms of strike capabilities and weapons integration. The aircraft also has an AN/ALE55 towed decoy and AN/ALQ214 jammer allowing it to survive in a high-threat environment.

IMO, the aircraft will more than hold its own against adversaries such as the SU-35 and other western aircraft like Typhoon and Rafale.