I take it you found it as amusing as I did then. You can find all sorts of gems if you look hard enough. 🙂

The best are the semi-oficial stories like when the EF killed scores of F 15 E at Lakenheat or the recent encounter between swarms of F 15 C and 1-2 Spanish EF, the last ones being victorious , of course…
________
Prilosec settlement news

So now it’s not just about *my plane is better than your plane* but also about *my plane has flown sooner than your plane*.

You guys are in dire need of getting a life. Dynamo, what was the last time you got laid? :rolleyes:

By a Slovak girl:diablo:?

You should other poeple’s post before accusing them of that very same thing. I never said there is an NG around; I only said it’s not a paper plane. With your logic, there is no F-35 around either.

In this moment, the F 35 design is frozen. The present F 35, nomatter you consider it (overbudget, underperformer, delayed, etc.) is the real thing that USAF/foreign buyers will have. Now tell me, is there anything comparable in SAAB yard?

Yeah, well. The same goes for everything else out there currently or previously in the fase of development, including but not limited to: F-35, YF-23, Rafale Fx, Typhoon and so on. Before January 29 you could easily call PAK-FA a paper/fictional-plane and be well undisputed, not the case anymore.

The Gripen NG has not been a paper plane since April/June 2008, when it was presented to the public, made its first flight and secured corporate/state funding. End of story.

This is a paper plane:

So, to your mind, only serial production planes can be classified as “non-fictional”, thus making every demonstrator/test plane a product of imagination, including the F-35 you mentioned.

Thanks for sharing your views. 🙂

You didn’t read my post. What you ar talking about is the (present flying) Gripen Demo not Gripen NG. Yes, the Demo has some features intended for the palned NG (414 engine, redesigned landing gear allowing some 800 kg extra fuel), but is not the NG. There is no NG around in this moment, belive me.

BTW, it does have a prototype as shown to this journalist.

http://www.livefist.blogspot.com/search?q=gripen+demo

So it is pretty much off the paper.

:DThat’s gripen Demo, not Gipen NG.

no not really…nineties electronics is nineties electronics…

Upgrades can only be done with certain limitations. Example APG77 will probably never be swash plated.
Thats why they get old in the end, and you start from scratch.
But then again, this generation of hardware we talk about will be state of the art for a long time. upgrades of some parts and lots of software will ensure that. One thing APG77 does that i dont think any other coming AESA do at the moment is enabled to datalink info to other APG77..

3 gen systems for example wasnt that much software….though not that upgradeble.

– The long developing/testing period had as result that the initial procesors of the F 22 (the i960MX :p) were out of production 5 years before the F 22 IOC ! Starting from Lot 5, operational F 22s have militarised PowerPC processors (IBM/Motorola), the same used by: SuperHornet, F 16 blk. 60, EF, Rafale, Gripen C;

– The initial “brick” T/R modules of the APG 77 have been replaced with “tile” T/R modules the same of the APG 79, APG 81, APG 63(V)3. They are made together by NG and Raytheon;

Those are not “nineties electronics”…

Now the swash plated BS. Just because it was inteded to be used on the ipotetical Gripen NG it doesn’t mean that it is the mother of all radars. The concept was studied for US VLO fighters and it was rejected ! Because during its rotation, when it face directly the enemmy radar it would compromise the frontal RCS. That’s why the APG 79, 77, 81 are all canted upwards. Of course, for a nonVLO fighter such as the fictional NG it doesn’t matter…

Pardon me, but somehow I find it hard to believe that the huge twin engined F-15 flies for ONLY $17K per hour while the tiny single engined F-16 flies for $50K.

Hint: USAF sources in both cases. So, someone must be lying or… they calculate the cost in different ways taking different things into consideration

It could be that it cost more to scramble a jets to intercept an intruder than “normal” flying hour (training). For example, after flying captive for a number of hours, an AMRAAM (or any missile by that matter) should be sent back to the manufacturer to re-assembly it.

Anyway, the idea that the more complex T 50 will cost 1500 $/h while a regular Flanker cost 10000 $/h doesn’t stand.

AIM-9X features vectored thrust/jet vane control. Although not yet cleared for the F-22, it’s only a matter of time, I don’t find this remark out of place.

But I do find it. Because with or without the 9X (in 2013 IIRC F 22 will have it), it’s just dumb to say that “the Pentagon gave up the intention of making the F-22 super-maneuverable. It is believed that highly-maneuverable, variable thrust rockets the F-22 is armed with make it unnecessary for the pilot to make a tail approach to the enemy for attack” Or, do you don’t consider the f 22 supermaeuvrable enough? Not compared with MiG 29 OVT not to whatever Su xx , but enough.

YF-22 needed to be developed first before it flew…

– Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) requirement comes from 1981
– Request For Proposal (RFP) and subsequent selection of contractor teams took place in 1986
– YF-22 first flew in 1990 and has been declared winner in 1991
– Production version F-22 first flew in 1997
– Introduction of F-22 was in 2005 and the aircraft reached FOC in Dec 2007

It really depends on the eye of the beholder but if someone says that it took 25 years to develop and introduce Raptor, then he is basically right.

No, she (or the guy he quoted) said that the F 22 took 25. Not YF 22 not ATF. If you put it this way, the stealth programs in US started in ’70.

Well, most of your remarks trying to disprove the author are not very professional, as well, if you ask me..

I am not a profesional journalist or aerospace specialist, but in my non-profesiional opinion, if someone expects that the T 50 will cost its operator(s) 1500 $/h it’s plain dumb.