dark light

garryA

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 948 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201079
    garryA
    Participant

    Does F-16E has high supersonic flight compared to F-16C?

    Top speed of Su-35 is not faster than Su-27

    Is F-16E fly higher than F-16C?

    Su-35 doesnot flight higher than Su-27

    what is internal fuel capacity increase for F-16E?

    quite significant with CFTs

    Su-35 has weopon distribution and loads flexibility which Su-27 simply cant

    No , it isn’t

    which fighter can increase flight range by 900km with just 2ET and at such location?. show practical examples.

    F-16
    https://s24.postimg.org/xttpwau39/F_16.jpg

    in reply to: How successful was the Su-47 Berkut? #2201087
    garryA
    Participant

    The MiG-25P and MiG-25PD Foxbat are the fastest fighter aircraft in the world with a maximum speed limited to Mach 2.83. It recorded the first air-to-air kill during the Gulf War when an Iraqi Foxbat downed a Boeing F-18 Hornet on January 17, 1991. Of particular note is that during the Gulf War, one Iraqi Foxbat-E eluded not only eight sweeping F-15s but also tangled with two General Dynamics EF-111A Aardvark.

    F-16, F-15 shot down several Mig-25 too

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201090
    garryA
    Participant

    Su-35 does not share any fundamental characteristics with Su-27.

    Same aerodynamic lay out and everything. To say Su-35 does not share any characteristic with Su-27 is like saying F-16E and F-16C does not share any characteristics.

    yup every fighter can lift 2000L tanks at such location

    They do

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201106
    garryA
    Participant

    Su35 derivative airframe?. try put dfbw control 3D TVC with high supersonic flight speed in another airframe see how many decades take for another firm to make just the weight right. there is picture of location of 2000L fuel tanks on wing in below brochure. it will show you what it is capable of carrying.

    su-35 is a derivertive of su-27, get over it. Any fighter can carry EFT on wing.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201370
    garryA
    Participant

    It is not an opinion, it is a fact.
    I guess Dassault is a good source.
    ” Le RAFALE, avion « OMNIROLE », est décliné en trois versions :

    – Le RAFALE C monoplace,
    – Le RAFALE M, monoplace embarquable sur porte-avions,
    – et le RAFALE B biplace.

    Ces trois versions partagent la même cellule et le même système d’armes, les principales différences étant le train d’atterrissage renforcé et la crosse d’appontage du RAFALE M.”

    From http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/defense/rafale/un-avion-optimise/

    In english: 3 version of the Rafale are sharing the same cell. The Rafale M differs for the land gear and tailhook.

    I used google translate for the site:

    These three versions share the same cell and the same weapons system, the main differences being the strengthened landing gear and landing the butt of the Rafale M

    My English is not the best but if they used the words main that mean there others change too thus, it doesn’t rule out the posibility of strengthen airframe IMHO. Still very vague though,but that is expected of manufacture TBF

    The root of their discussion is not really about strengthen airframe vs arresting hook. It is in fact about maneuverable. All because Picard speculated that because M and C version share the same airframe that must mean the ultimate load limit of Rafale is 16.5G because navy aircraft need to be extra safe.

    Ultimate G load limit has very little to do with agility

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201382
    garryA
    Participant

    Except his source say that there is a difference in landing gear and arresting hook, landing aid & fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Ergo you don’t just glue the tail-hook on the skin, obviously.

    His source clearly contradicts him because nowhere do they mention that the airframe is reinforced. Obviously you have to strengthen the part where you attach the tail-hook but that’s it.

    Now you fanbois can get your thread back as soon as you stop propagating lies about the competition.
    Nic

    The source said, the different are new landing gear, arresting hook and fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Fuselage is airframe as far as i know.Strengthen and re enforced mean the same thing too.TBH,i dont see how that contradict with what he said.It seem reasonable that carrier version have strengthen airframe too.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201392
    garryA
    Participant

    I actually posted the links in previous page.

    That make the discussion even more pointless now. If there is no counter source then i think it already settle. No point continuing it. Can we back to F-35 new please?

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201457
    garryA
    Participant

    TBH arguing without source is a bit pointless. At the end of the day, neither one of you will be able to change the opposition’s view if you argue based on opinion.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201826
    garryA
    Participant

    So, are you calling something labelled F/A a multirole, right?

    Let’me rephrase it, so to be more clear : in that page there are a lot of airplane that specialize themselves in one peculiar A2G mission + just one i.e. the F-16 that was started as a light A2A fighter but from almost the same beginning was shifted more and more toward A2G missions.
    Now, seems me that everyone is focusing in the confrontation between this actually now more than 35yo plane and the F-35 only for what matter a peculiar type of A2A engagement i.e. dogfighting.
    Actually almost all the armed services acquiring them is just looking for an A2G plane and the F-35 has almost potentially the capacity to fulfill almost all the different niches of that role, previously covered by a dedicated aircraft.
    This would be a great feat in itself IMHO when instead all the discussion in going on evaluating it in something it was not designed for from the very beginning.

    I know that you are not a native speaker but your post are certainly very confusing sometimes. What exactly are you trying to say here ? that F-35 will not be able to perform A2A role because that not what it was designed for ? or that we should discuss the A2G role of F-35 ?

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201829
    garryA
    Participant

    no, MBDA fully realize it would take a re-design to make it work, i dont think its going to happen

    re design is a grossly over statement TBH. Meteor would need a clipped fin to fit in F-35 AA station. Air to air missiles with clipped fin version are not really that rare, been done plenty of time before.Case in point, from Aim-120B to Aim-120C the fin size reduced quite significantly
    http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AIM-120_2.jpg
    http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AIM-120C.jpg

    no, moderate levels of rcs like F-22 & F-35 does not compare with a flying pancake void of protruding control surfaces

    B-2 would likely get lower RCS at lower frequency and from side aspect. But from frontal aspect and medium/high frequency, it wont hold any advantages over F-22 or F-35. Btw, why don’t you give us the whole PDF files ?

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201853
    garryA
    Participant

    Actually it does fit on AG station , the modification is so that it fit in AA station as well. Given that UK buy F-35 , MBDA would be dumb to ignore such big domestic market

    MBDA seem to suggest that their SPEAR and clipped fin meteor will fit on F-35B too
    https://s30.postimg.org/9dhy3c8wh/F_35_B.jpg

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2203398
    garryA
    Participant

    Seem me this is a discussion with not much of any sense.
    Original Gripen and F-35 were designed from completely opposite starting point in terms of requisites and ecquipment.
    Swedish one was developed with a strict national defense perspective, limited range, NO AERIAL REFUEL.

    What are you talking about ?
    http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Photos/F%C3%B6rsvarsmakten.jpg

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2203487
    garryA
    Participant

    The range numbers for the Gripen NG seem pretty comparable with the ones for the good old Mirage 2000, 800 NM with two externals and four 250 kg bombs, and that M53P has a lousy SFC…

    https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mirage-2000.htm

    on Dassault-aviation official website it said that Mirage will reach 830 nm with 3 EFT and 6 MiCa
    http://mblogthumb2.phinf.naver.net/20111004_145/pwrangshion_1317694876069qEz6S_JPEG/664562420014869261.jpg?type=w800
    http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/customer-support/mirage-2000/aircraft-characteristics/

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2203967
    garryA
    Participant

    yes, i assume drop tanks and small load unless otherwise specified,
    that goes for both L.M & SAAB and everyone else btw, its basic PR,
    they do specify internal weapons so that limits the load to a maximum of 4 aam.
    likewise unless otherwise specified there is no time on station, its back and forth, basic PR yet again.
    if there was ever a new fighter where flight characteristics was known down to the last decimal, that would be gripen E

    It clearly said F-35 combat radius is 760 nm for internal air to air configuration, i dont even know where you get the idea that F-35 carry drop tank from. Using that logic , should we also assume that Gripen NG 800 nm combat radius come from 4 External drop tank + 2 Comformal fuel tank + mid air refueling ?
    https://i.imgur.com/jMDocjY.png

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2203973
    garryA
    Participant

    with drop tanks and 2-4 AAM….

    It say internal air to air configuration not external configuration

    same configuration as gripen E A2A, except gripen E does 800 nm and then top it off with 30 minutes on station,
    which translates into some ~ another 150 nm or so

    800 nm + 30 min on station was before the 1000 kg weight gained , in the newest advertised PDF they changed it to able to fly 800 nm , drop weapon then fly back. No loiter time

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 948 total)