Funny, you left your name off the poll???;)
I’m;)not:diablo:Sweetman’s:cool:Antithesis:p.
Funny, you left your name off the poll???;)
I’m;)not:diablo:Sweetman’s:cool:Antithesis:p.
Let’s have a forum poll.
Who do you believe?
(a) Bill Sweetman
(b) Scooter
(c) Neither.
Let’s have a forum poll.
Who do you believe?
(a) Bill Sweetman
(b) Scooter
(c) Neither.
I look forward to seeing the F-22 pic with 30 EA-18G roundels on it’s side (better use stealth paint).;)
Boeing slaps LM in the face (again), good for them!
I look forward to seeing the F-22 pic with 30 EA-18G roundels on it’s side (better use stealth paint).;)
Boeing slaps LM in the face (again), good for them!
Well, an American size “S” piece of clothing would be a German size “M” and an Italian size “L”.
I won’t even go into the waist sizes!!! Talk about flattering to deceive!!:D
AW&ST Feb 8, 2009
By David A. FulghumHoping to win support for F-22 production beyond the current 183 aircraft, Lockheed Martin is revealing proprietary data that show performance in several areas is better than baseline requirements…
…Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can’t deploy until about 2014.
The F-22’s newly revealed areas of overperformance include a radar cross section that officials will only characterize as “better” than what was asked for. Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel “marble.” By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.…
…The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16.
Well, an American size “S” piece of clothing would be a German size “M” and an Italian size “L”.
I won’t even go into the waist sizes!!! Talk about flattering to deceive!!:D
AW&ST Feb 8, 2009
By David A. FulghumHoping to win support for F-22 production beyond the current 183 aircraft, Lockheed Martin is revealing proprietary data that show performance in several areas is better than baseline requirements…
…Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can’t deploy until about 2014.
The F-22’s newly revealed areas of overperformance include a radar cross section that officials will only characterize as “better” than what was asked for. Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel “marble.” By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.…
…The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16.
I think that weight limit of 270kg for PAK-FA is only for lightweight launcher (numbers are similar) but no for whole aircraft. In fact, big launcher is stated for 700kg, the weight of Kh-35 and Kh-58 😉
Apologies :o, I should have elaborated. The ‘grouping/cluster’ arrangement for the launcher is limited to 270kg per weapon, with some military officials expressing concern that this is too low.
Of course, the one-off Kh-35 & 58 could be carried alone on it’s own launcher.
I think that weight limit of 270kg for PAK-FA is only for lightweight launcher (numbers are similar) but no for whole aircraft. In fact, big launcher is stated for 700kg, the weight of Kh-35 and Kh-58 😉
Apologies :o, I should have elaborated. The ‘grouping/cluster’ arrangement for the launcher is limited to 270kg per weapon, with some military officials expressing concern that this is too low.
Of course, the one-off Kh-35 & 58 could be carried alone on it’s own launcher.
The Su-34 has been declared fully operational, with a grand total of 3 (series prod.) delivered. The (LRP?) production contract is for 5 years.
Elsewhere, it has been reported that the PAK-FA individual weapons’ weight limit is 270kg, after static testing @ Zhukovsky.
The Su-34 has been declared fully operational, with a grand total of 3 (series prod.) delivered. The (LRP?) production contract is for 5 years.
Elsewhere, it has been reported that the PAK-FA individual weapons’ weight limit is 270kg, after static testing @ Zhukovsky.
Which, is one of the many reasons I personally don’t like Mr. Sweetman. Just like the general Media.
It is because of the ban on journalists in ‘Scooter World’, that you don’t know anything.
Which, is one of the many reasons I personally don’t like Mr. Sweetman. Just like the general Media.
It is because of the ban on journalists in ‘Scooter World’, that you don’t know anything.
What is the difference between LO and VLO and who decided that?
LO is what the F-35 is, the F-22/B-2A sits on the border between LO & VLO.
VLO is a tail-less design like the X-47B, i.e. that exhibits ‘broadband stealth’ characteristics.
Taken to it’s extreme, VLO would embody replacement of reflective internal metallic structural spars to defy LW radars in the 2GHz regime.
If anything, Sweetman lends tentative support for the F-35- citing the limitations of X-47B-type automation and the necessity for the man-in-the-loop F-35- but VLO- it aint.