This is an F-18L, the land (L) version of the F-18A with HAF roundels. As usually, a few HAF’s aviators visited the US and had a few evaluation flights with that airframe, and for the occasion the plane was painted in HAF’s colours. Note that it’s the standard blue-gray scheme with huge dark blue roundels of the eighties, AegeanGhost scheme was adopted later in the nineties.

Reportedly, that type was actually favoured over F-16C by HAF, but then socialist government prefered the cheaper F-16C, so as to split the buy with equal number of french-made Mirage 2Ks (40 plus 40 of each, rather than 100 of one type, as HAF wanted).

The F-18L was ultimately never sold to anyone, so that decision proved correct for Greece, more or less.

Why would you call them liars? Do you know of another 5th generation engine that’s in service or being tested – what is a 5th gen engine anyway?:confused::rolleyes:

Well, to begin with, the release clearly states “fifth generation fighter jet engines” and not “5th gen engine”. Do take the trouble to actually read the post before clicking “submit reply” next time. :rolleyes:

Other than that, as we know by now, the PAK FA incorporated its new, though not yet fully developed, engines. The thing flew, so the engines do actually work.

And I’m pretty sure that the F119 is a fifth generation fighter jet engine today as much as YF119 was in 1990-1, P&W would certainly agree anyway.

Damn, those Chinese learned how to play capitalism faster than I would have thought. They don’t even try to act with military force and still have hundreds of thousands of people by their throats. Scary.

More info…

The Chicago-based aerospace company would suffer massive loss of business from a China embargo, as it has manufactured and continues to supply over half the airplanes in China’s growing airline system. The company also uses a high degree of parts made in China, according to China Daily.

China Threatens ‘Unprecedented Sanctions’ Against Boeing After US Arms Sales To Taiwan

China is Boeing’s biggest international market, and the company is working hard to grab the lion’s share of the booming demand it expects in coming years from Chinese airlines.

McDonnell Douglas is selling Harpoon missiles to Taiwan as part of the arms sale announced by the Pentagon on Friday.

…………..

Boeing’s Tinseth said China is forecast to require about 3,800 passenger aircraft worth 400 billion US dollars over the next 20 years to meet an expected explosion in travel demand.

Boeing says too early to speculate on China sanctions

That still doesn’t make it fact.

For a sixth time: All available and future (known that is) stealth aircraft DO NOT have canards. You say no and claim it’s debatable. No problem, I rest my case.

Imagine if in the early days of aviation someone had looked at all currently flying aircraft and realised they all had propellers, thus meaning all must always have propellers and that the idea of any other idea by that reasoning was impossible. I guess the jet engine wouldn’t have happened.

Not the slightest relevance.

I was taking the mick, making a light hearted summing up of what you did. I didn’t seriously mean that LM is the only stealth aircraft manufacturer.

OK, and I was being ironic, I’m sorry for that. But the fact remains. it’s not a so to speak “american way”. All stealth approaches so far, everywhere, lack canards. Perhaps this will change in the future, but for the time being, all we have is artist’s impressions and speculations. Wanna base your argument on speculations? Fine by me. But don’t come forward afterwards demanding… facts.

Even if sometime in the future a stealth design with canards does actually appear, and even if it actually does enter production, it will still have to prove itself.

Don’t argue for the sake of it, you believe that Canards are unstealthy, I think you may be mistaken, but really replied to point out that some of your arguments didn’t back up what you were saying or can’t be claimed as fact.

I am not at all mistaken in the sense that really nobody uses canards in stealth designs. You say this may change in the futur. Yes, it may, I can live with that.

Mr. HAWK ace
How many American aircraft in production or under development have ‘Canard’ control surfaces? NONE !!!
According to your arguments this means that canard foeplanes are incompatible with flight !!! A rather silly conclusion, don’t you think?

An extremely silly conclusion actually, which makes me happy that it’s not mine. Continue speculating, after a while it’s funny, it really is.

Really? Have you seen them?

Are you asking because you are ignorant and want to learn? or because you somehow expect a specific answer? Cause in the second case, you just put your money on the wrong horse.

Here is an AMI Typhoon, paying a visit at Schimatari AFB a few months ago. Pics taken by myself.

And here is a close shot just in front of the intake, and blades appearent on the backdrop.

…have a nice day.

All of your argument seems to be based on opinion, not fact, even to the point where you seem to ignore facts.

O rly? All operational or under development stealth aircraft do not include canards. This is a fact however, not my… opinion and that’s what my arguments are based on.

Sorry to spoil your fantasy.

:confused:
What is all this about, knowing the future? if i could do that i will be rich.

i said to control elevation you cant rely on TVC.

Also theres no difference between elevators and canards, but you have to choose between frontal or rear RCS at the moment, because the americans havent figured out the non-resonance canard/elevator(resonance between the two pair of wings).

OK, nobody can predict the future. But we can at least count on solid facts to make conclusions.

Still eurocanards are today >0,1rcs, so not to bad for semi stealth 😉

:rolleyes:

Oh, but of course the eurocanards have >0,1rcs. Especially that Rafale with that permenantly attached refueling probe is quite stealthy. Or the typhoon with the fan blades in public view. Or the Gripen, with all those antennas hanging around. Sure, no question about that. How stupid the american are, they spent tons of billions of $$$ in designing clean configurations.

Lol, by rolling your eyes doesn’t make you an instant aero-expert. End of the day, you still can’t solve the plain fact I present here: the X-36 demonstrated as far as the stealth is concerned, the canard isn’t an absolute adversary to the stealth.

Actually, at the end of the day, the X-36 is neither in production, nor operational and you are still speculating.

Look at the designs currently under development,

To begin with, the second picture you posted does not appear, you should upload it to imageshack or attach it.

There are hundreds of thousands of such drawings and plastic models. Sadly for your rhetoric, none of them has been approved for production. If and when this changes, we will, hopefully, still be here to resume the conversation. For the time being, all stealth aircraft lack canards: F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2. Even the new PAK FA does only use movable LERXs, not canards.

The next upcoming 5th g fighter could well be with canard, oh, btw, the fact is the blueprint is already frozen last aug and by all accounts it means the prototype is in the making.

Of course it could. With the same rational, in 5 billion years, the sun could freeze. This is not a joke and I ‘m not being sarcastic. It’s a scientific theory based on data and solid arguments. BUT for the time being, we can sleep in peace: The sun is not going to freeze in the forseeable future just like canards are not going to be used in stealth or low RCS aircraft.

A further proof for that? The canards on the Su-35BM were removed. Also, a new Typhoon concept was studied with low RCS in mind. Guess what. That, too, had its canards removed. I ‘ll let you guess why.

Cheers

Look at X-36

Look at my post and read it again. Do you see any “…or experimental or technology demonstrators”???

No because it ain’t there. :rolleyes:

As for X-36… http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1516789#post1516789

have a nice day.