aurcovSweetman is no Kopp, but on F 35 subject is biased:
– at page 14 there is a sort of LO ranking: the F 35 is considered only LO! Give me a break…
– at page 15 he compared the F 35 with the EF. He said the F35 is 2 tonnes heavier. Is more like 1.
– at the same page he states “similar normal fuel load” :p
– at the same page, according to Mr. Sweetman, the F 35 has less carriage flexibility in non LO mode. Also “only 4 heavy stations if more than 2 AMRAAMs carried. The fact is that it would carry 9 tons of weapons! It can carry externally almost all the weapons tha F 15 E can. BTW, those “only” 4 heavy stations are certified at 2500 and 5000 lbs!
aurcovSweetman is no Kopp, but on F 35 subject is biased:
– at page 14 there is a sort of LO ranking: the F 35 is considered only LO! Give me a break…
– at page 15 he compared the F 35 with the EF. He said the F35 is 2 tonnes heavier. Is more like 1.
– at the same page he states “similar normal fuel load” :p
– at the same page, according to Mr. Sweetman, the F 35 has less carriage flexibility in non LO mode. Also “only 4 heavy stations if more than 2 AMRAAMs carried. The fact is that it would carry 9 tons of weapons! It can carry externally almost all the weapons tha F 15 E can. BTW, those “only” 4 heavy stations are certified at 2500 and 5000 lbs!
aurcovTypical nonsense. The range of an AAM is related to the burn-time of a motor. Not a larger motor but a higher fuel-load will make the difference. 😎
:p So an AIM 120 A with a booster/sustainer motor must have, in your opinion, a longer range compared with an AIM 120 C that has a booster-only motor (that burns in a few seconds)
aurcovAMRAAM A,B,C,D has around the same chance to engage a target at any given G.
But C and D has improved ECCM, longer range for any given target, can be carried internally and has a smaller warhead.Here is a nice link on AA missiles.
http://www.canit.se:8000/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html
Crap.
-The C achieves the longer range by using loft trajectory, unlike the A and B;
-the C introduced a smarter warhead; the target detection device (TDD) senses the direction of the target (very few BVR missile kill the target by direct hit; most of them by proximity sensor) and “direct” the blast only towards the target, unlike older warheads that explode in a sphere-like pattern;
-the D has 2 way datalink and GPS (aside a fiberoptic INS). That represent an improvement of a few orders of magnitude in precision. Normally the longer the target, smaller the chance to hit it;
-the D has a two impulse engine; the range quoted by serious sources (AvLeak, FlighGlobal) is scarry.
And, don’t post links to Swedish crappy sites. That site is a joke.
aurcovFor BVR speculation, all the argument comme to superior stealth. Perhaps they should know that only 20 percent of aircraft shot down between 1958 and 1992 fell to radar-guided threats, the other 80% came from infrared seekers. They should consider the mono-engine torch before arguing 6 to 1 success.
:p:p:p Why didn’t you make a statistic starting from WWI? It would result that 99.999 % of all kills were by canon!
I would be you more interested in the trend of AA kills, this is more usefull:
aurcovhttp://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-trying-to-get-israel-to-leave-joint.html
An interesting article about F-35 posted by Tango III. The article reports about Israel asking to install own systems in their future F-35s, the reason being [let me quote]
‘Israel fears that the jets will be sold to other countries in the region – like Saudi Arabia – and if our own technology is installed it will allow Israel to maintain a qualitative superiority even if the jets are sold to our enemies’
We are being taught by the pro-F-35 crowd that the aircraft will feature the most advanced avionics suite ever installed in a combat aircraft (sensor fusion, ECM etc. etc.) Now, suddenly, Israelis claim that they actually need to install their own systems because they are qualitatively superior to those of the F-35… 🙂
Now, if that is true, that blows a freaking big hole into the theories that everyone wanting to get close to the capability of the F-35 needs 40bil R&D budget (of which avionics would eat up a great portion). In fact, a tiny country of 7mil with yearly defense budget of $12bil can obviously afford to effectively counter the ‘world leading designer with decades of experience and blah blah’ in terms of avionics..
BS!
First Israel won’t buy F 35s, but receive them. If they don’t like what US give them, they can very well buy anything they please them: EF, Rafale etc.
Second, more informed sources (AvLeak), don’t mention radar, but jammers, a smaller version of Python AAM (to fit in the weapon bay) and communication equipment. BTW, all Israeli F 16 A,B,C,D,I, and F 15 A,B,C,D,I have US made radars.
Finally, US is right to be very cautious to allow Israeli engineers to get their noses into the F 35 boxes. Otherwise, in a few years, the Chinese J 10 and J 11 would be fitted with clones of F 35 black boxes.
aurcovYes
The faster you go, the less advantage the TVC brings to the table. TVC his wonderful for noise pointing, almost useless for ITR/STR at high subsonic/transonic speeds (but hawfully good for loosing energy). This is so much a factor that the 2D TVC of the F22 his blocked on a fixed position at transonic/supersonic speeds, the exact regime that the Raptor AND the Typhoon were designed to fly/fight. And the basic numbers (TW Ratio, wing loading, etc) of these two aircrafts are very, very close.
There´s no “Raptors super manaeuvarability” when facing the likes of a Phoon (evolved Eagle/Flanker, pick your choice) at high subsonic/transonic/Supersonic speed, any of these aircrafts have hit the “human factor” threeshold.
Wrong. The TVC are especially usefull at high speed. Paul Metz can explain it to you:
Metz:
Thrust-vectoring is often thought of in terms of the classic ‘dogfight’ where one aircraft is trying to out-turn his opponent at ever decreasing airspeeds. Whether a pilot should ever engage in these slow speed fights is a matter that is hotly debated within the fighter pilot community. Certainly, there is general agreement that it is best to not get slow – ever. With the advent of the helmet mounted sight, 4th generation heat seeking, off-boresight missiles the slow dogfight becomes even more dangerous. ‘To slow or not to slow’ are questions of tactics and best left to the expert fighter pilots of the future. The F-22’s thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.
The funny part is that Paul Metz (the chief tst pilot of F 22) gave this interview to our friend Dr. kopp :p http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html
aurcovI think everyone needs to take the F-35 with a dose of reality.
I truely believe it will be a very good AtA performer, matching the likes of the F-16/18/15 or thereabouts in performance, and possibly with a few add on’s such as minor supercruise etc..
However, it will never be a Raptor, EF, Rafale, Su-XX, PAK-FA in the physical performance envelope, it will be good, just not as optimised as those platforms.
Please, if you want to keep a serious tone on this thread, don’t compare the F 22 with EFor Rafale.
aurcovThe F-22 set the benchmark, and Sukhoi will attempt to emulate it’s capablities. Remember, no expense has been spared: super-computers & the latest CAD/CAM software has been imported and utilised, production plants built anew with the latest composite fab machinery, TsAGI, 2TsNII & NPO Saturn have all upgraded their facilities. In fact you could argue that the project has neccessitated the speedy consolidation of Russian aviation industry (hence UAC).
I think that it’s a Russian obsession-to match the US. This unfurtunatelly put them as # 2.
aurcovI don’t see a single ex-WP country forking out $170-200mil for something as useless as F-35. Not today and not in any reasonably near future. EU will be pushing them towards European designs – maybe equally useless but at least cheaper and local-made. Dream on…
Poland did buy 48 F 16. Also, my own country is to buy ~ 36 fighters. While, probably won’t be F 35, what I can guaratee is that it won’t be europeans. Probably F 16.
aurcovA supermodern fighter packed with the most expensive material technologies up to date ending up as something that can’t really dogfight and similar in subsonic performance to a 35 year old Viper.. a lemon, how else would one call it?..
The F 35 will be capable to dogfight with the best (EF, Rafale,MKI) with (at least) even chances. And the subsonic performance is close to Raptor, or a clean F 16.
A good half of LM press releases concerning Lightning II is devoted to defending its flying abilities in style ”come on, guys, our F-35 ain’t that bad”
Because many dumbarses (Kopp & comp.) claim that it is bad.
aurcovYou are right. Viggen wan’t comparable to F-16, it was superior. Attack versions AJ37 was flying since late 60s at the times F-16s were sitting on drawing boards. In 1979, few years after F-16As were introduced, Swedes already had a BVR-capable JA37 variant in inventory. It wan’t until the introduction of AMRAAM when F-16 has became superior to Viggen in A-A role – JA37s were given this upgrade in 1997.
So a plane is superior to another if it entered in operational service earlier? :p
-The F 16 have introduced what it defines 4rd gen. fighters: relaxed stability, fly-by-wire, 9G with full internal fuel & weapon load. Just compare the flight enveloppe. At 30,000 feet, the F 16 can pull 6G, while the Viggen 3G…
-F 16 didn’t receive until 1989 (ADF variant) a BVR capabilty for one and only reasion: F 15 was there in large numbers.
– The Swedes wouldn’t been able to built the Viggen without US help (and I’m not speaking about the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-22). Under a secret agreement signed by President Eisenhower a military-technology transfer (the “37-annex”) was implemented, so Sweden received advanced U.S. aeronautical technology that allowed them to build the Saab 37 Viggen much faster and cheaper than would otherwise have been possible.
Gripen NG is not aimed at being comparable to F-35, just compare their price tags (no, not the ones claimed by Norwegians)
I’m not interested in hearing what loosers have to say. Of course, SAAB will claim unfair competition, bla, bla, bla…
aurcovIrrelevant data. Where are the USA’s 12 F-35s they were supposed to get last year according to that chart? Hiding?
He still has a point. Even if you buy an existing plane, you still have to wait ~ 2 years in order to receive it.
aurcovThe only pure fantasy here is your stance that in order to surpass the F-35 everyone needs to start a ground research from the very zero and fork out $40bil for development.
By this logic, Sweden could never have developed, produced and flown the Viggen and later the Gripen because Americans have invested incomparably more to develop F-16.
Your example would work if the Viggen would have been comparable with the F 16. Well, it wasn’t. Likewise, the Grippen NG will not be comparable with F 35 without an R&D effort of the same order of magnitude. The same goes for PAK FA vs. F 22.
aurcovSupercruise is a design goal for the PAK FA, it’s larger than a Fulcrum but smaller than a Flanker with more powerful engines, and its weapons bays are large enough to carry Kh-58 mods, R-37Ms, and possibly even KS-172s. The rest I don’t know and haven’t claimed to, but I think those are already some fairly interesting points to mull over.
KC 172 and R 37 are not for PAK FA
Sign In
