Since when is Taranis supersonic?
the TVC nozzles on the T-50 is pretty much the same as on the Indian MKI. At least in the axis movment.
I was under the impression that T-50 — and Su-35 — have 3D thrust vectoring as on MiG-29OVT, as opposed to 2.5D on Su-30MKI.
Also, I believe the previous poster is asking about the potential for RCS-shaped 2D thrust vectoring nozzles as on F-22.
In what way?
In that it completely ignores the notion of opportunity cost, and other important factors such as acquisition and operating costs, and the nature of military capability as, in large part, relative to that fielded by others. To say nothing of politico- industrial-strategic considerations.
I’m not saying the F-35 performs poorly on all these metrics, I’m saying that “does it outperform what it is replacing?” is very short-sighted as an overall measure of a particular program/platform. From that perspective Il-476 is a brilliant program.
For me as a British person after everything else what matters is “Does it out perform what it is replacing”!
This is a remarkably short-sighted perspective. =/
Hmm….
PBY Catalina
Tu-95 Bear
F-4 Phantom
All that money available to the US and yet its all gone so very wrong, why is this?
The Americans are more wasteful, myopic and foolish than others precisely because they have so much money. Innovation, adaptation, efficiency, etc. is driven by pressure — economic, strategic, etc. — and the Americans face very little. Ergo, they become fat, lazy and irresponsible, blundering from one debacle to the next (Afghanistan, F-35, etc.) without ever learning very much. In contrast, the Swedes — to go to the other end of the spectrum — are smart because the alternative is to be dead.
The real issue for America in this respect, however, is not the present but the future, in that their politico-cultural hang-ups (e.g. belief in American exceptionalism, reflexive militarism, corporate corruption of government, etc.) are and will continue to hamstring them in adapting to changing circumstances (economic, geopolitical, technological, etc.) raising the possibility that America will only learn and adapt to a changing world the same way most nations have throughout history — through suffering and defeat.
Defeat short of annihilation is the most powerful impetus for change — witness the transformation of the US Army post-Vietnam. Victory, in contrast, breeds complacency.
http://s017.radikal.ru/i401/1301/cc/b0bfb3184361.jpg
Man, those engines look huge.
PAK-FA is going to have butt loads of excess power.
Link no work. 🙁
EDIT: nvm, think I found it in the other thread.
By the way, why are the Rafales carrying A2A missiles? What possible airbourne threat could they encounter?
The wingtip MICAs are tied into the IRST system.
Some great shots here guys, thanks.
I have always liked the MiG-29
JSR is that you?? :p
I found this after browsing on another forum and thought I’d post it here for some of the narrow minded Argies. Enjoy!
If you want to sling **** at each other that’s fine, but you can hardly claim the high-ground whilst doing so. “Narrow-minded Argies” indeed. :rolleyes:
There is a deterrent/containment effect with a basing agreement. We saw it in effect 65 years ago in West Germany where NATO face off against the Warsaw Pact and 60 years ago along the 38th parallel with UN face off against the North Koreans and PLA.
There is no need for Australia to participate in supplying said containment. We can and should free-ride on the containment supplied by the US, Japan, Korea, et al.
The other factor is that the United States could itself become a source of instability. As the power balance in the region shifts, frictions will inevitably develop. The evidence over the last decade a does not support the view of the United States as a responsible global power always acting rationally with its own best interests at heart (to say nothing of others’) and the domestic trends in this respect are not promising either. To put it bluntly: it is dangerous to stand beneath a falling tree.
Today, you see Japan ranked #3 in GDP, Germany #4 and South Korea #15. Where would they be if they had to divert funds to defense if those basing agreements had not been in place?
The same place they are now? :confused:
And how much additional money would Australia need to add to defense if it could not rely on its allies to keep the Strait of Malacca, Indian Ocean and South Pacific open to trade?
A significant amount. Defence expenditure would probably have to rise gradually to at least 2.5% of GDP. This was the same point made in the 2009 White Paper and is a reasonable argument in favour of the status quo in the absence of significant risk of conflict. This suggests that there is no pressing need for radical change, yet certainly one should not make long-term moves in the other direction such as inviting the establishment of permanent US bases, if for no other reason than that such decisions prove incredibly difficult to reverse if and when such circumstances warrant it. As the Japanese discovered, there is no polite way to say “umm, **** off will you?” Much better not to invite folk into your house in the first place.
Basing agreements invite conflicts in the same way fire extinguishers in the home invite house fires. :rolleyes:
In the event of conflict between China and the United States, Australia must have the option to remain neutral and thereby avoid unnecessary spilling of Australian blood (and, of course, the possibility of joining the United States in defeat). Hosting American forces effectively removes this option and indeed places the very fate of the nation in the hands of Washington.
There is no reason for Australia to involve itself in the Great Power game of the 21st Century, and much risk in doing so, i.e. we could be squashed like a bug. Of course the American alliance provides a measure of security against Chinese aggression, however — and this bit is important — such is not contingent upon Australia’s vassalage to the United States. That is to say, we can (and should) free-ride on America’s broader commitment to the status quo. America didn’t come to Australia’s aid in World War II out of obligation or generosity, but because doing so served its own interests.
The actions of successive political & democratically elected governments over the years will disagree with your notion. Clearly many see a strong political interest in partnering with the US on this and other weapons system developmental programs..
Ah yes, “democracy”. The real nature of things was and continues to be revealed quite clearly with the War of Terror, with popular opposition to participation in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq counting for absolutely nothing, then or now.
In my nation the choice is between a government which invites the US to establish a permanent base in NT (thereby placing us directly in the firing line in any US-China conflict) and an opposition which would have them establish two. The support for American empire is as universal amongst the elite here as it is in the United States, to the detriment of the citizens of both nations.
there is strong inherent political value in a global partnership of western nations on a fifth generation strike fighter…
Political value for whom? This is a game of elites — American elites interested in power rather than the welfare of the American people — and the elites in other nations which the United States have dazzled, bought and co-opted for their own ends, again with the interests of the citizens of those nations nowhere to be found. The F-35 program is indeed one of the tentacles of American empire, but that is only more reason to be suspicious of it.
The nations that have partnered knew pretty well what the product would be like
At $50m a copy and cheaper to operate than F-16 and F/A-18 … well, the capabilities of the aircraft hardly mattered.