TonyActually pogosyan stated pak-fa’s range was around 1500km supersonic, not miles.
Thanks TRI 1500km is still a lot more….. and many times the 150 miles that the F-35 can do!
The correct designation of this strike aircraft should be A-35 and not F-35!
LM cannot simply admit they made a mistake in the F-35 trying to get 3 different aircraft in one airframe….thank god the USAF and USN realised that…..that is why there will be no more “joint” fighters (as in the NGAD).
TonySwerve, you’re right! Prince Bernhard wrote to Lockheed asking for “commissions” in 1974. When the truth came out the Dutch government watered down the public version and kept a lot of it under wraps to save embarrassment and didn’t press criminal charges. The Prince has to resign as Inspector General of the Armed Forces (he wasn’t allowed to wear military uniform ever again but the Prince simply ignored this!). The Prince himself finally admitted in an interview published after his death in 2004 that he took over $1 million from Lockheed….he pretended he gave it to the WWF but that was not true! That is another story!).
TonyFirstly, FBW you are mistaken…..the Su-57 can fly supersonic for 1,500 miles using the new Iz-30 engines that were tested just before Christmas.
Secondly, the Gripen can fly at Mach 2 unlike uses the F-35 which has a max speed of Mach 1.6 and unfortunately to attain that speed the F-35 is forced to use afterburners burning more fuel!
The SAAB Gripen does not need to use afterburners to reach supersonic speed and neither does it need to use afterburners to sustain supersonic flight…..that is what most would consider supercruise and not Lockheed Martin’s “take” in their brochures of what is supercruise!
Just accept it….the F-35 is a strike jet and it’s not designed to supercruise! As for PR puffs what about the tosh put out by LM about the F-35 being able to spot rockets at a 1000 miles! My Mark 1 eyeball can do that as well!
TonyAll fighter jets usually go bingo after 150 miles supersonic flight surely – unless you’re carrying 11 tons of internal fuel like the Su-35?
I was replying to your statement that most fighter jets run out of fuel after flying supersonic for 150 miles…..I say there are fighter jets that don’t run out of fuel after flying supersonic for 150 miles…..in fact there are many that can fly supersonic ten times further (1500 miles) than the F-35…..even if the F-35 is carrying 8 tons of fuel internally (just 3 tons less than the Su-35 which has 2200 km range on internal fuel).
I could ask you the same question what has the Su-35 that you mentioned got to do with Belgian’s fighter purchase! (joke 😉
One western aircraft that could carry out most missions required by the Belgian Air Force is of course the SAAB Gripen….which has true supercruise! (no afterburner)
Tony@Levsha
I agree fighters not designed for supercruise like the F-35 will run out of fuel quickly when going supersonic ……the F-135 engine the f-35 uses is not designed for supercruise……the point being much is made of the 8 tons of internal fuel carried by the F-35……unfortunately that doesn’t help because of the F-35’s fuel fraction…….difference classes but the fuel fraction of the F-22 is 29%…MiG-31’s is over 45%….
TonyTomcat….is any part of the summary I posted above incorrect? Yes or No?
It is not the job of the Belgian Air Force staff to mislead anyone…..especially the civilian hierarchy in command who reply on accurate reports and advice from the Air Force…..in the end in a democracy the civilians are in charge and make the decisions based on honest advice.
One can argue the Danish competition was similarly “fixed” by the Danish Air Force in favour of their preferred choice.
TonyYes, I agree…..there are few alternatives….the Belgians need to ask themselves if they need a “day one” expeditionary strike aircraft which can be refuelled by the USAAF or other friendly air forces….it can do a supersonic spurt of 150 miles before going bingo on fuel if afterburners have to be used (negating any stealth attributes even with mitigation of afterburner signature)…..which you might argue is sufficient for their air policing needs….
TonyThanks BlackArcher for posting that…..a summary below:-
Three Belgian Air Force generals have been suspended until at least 20 April when an investigation board set up by Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel will report.
The officers are suspected of having hidden from Belgian Chief of Defense Marc Compernol and Defense Minister Steven Vandeput studies carried which concluded that the Belgian air force’s F-16s could remain in service for at least six years longer that their planned 2023 retirement date.
Belgian Air Force Commander General Frederik Vansina, General Luc Roelants, head of the public procurement section of the Belgian defence ministry’s Material Resources agency; and Colonel Peter Letten, “manager” of the F-16 fleet were suspended by Belgian Chief of Defense Marc Compernol.
Colonel Harold van Pee, head of Belgian Air force procurement, and of the Air Combat Capability Program (ACCaP) which is managing the Belgian fighter competition, confirmed to Belga news agency that he had also been suspended.
It was revealed this week that Simon Put, the Belgian defence minister’s deputy chief of staff, was hired by Lockheed Martin as a lobbyist.
The last European F-16 scandal was when Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (former member of the Nazi party and the SS and father of Queen Beatrix) took $1.1 million in bribes in 1976 from Lockheed to influence the Dutch government’s purchase of fighters.
Tony….its really all about picking which export is the lesser evil for you
US – tight controls over spares/upgrades/stock
French – more flexible but will charge you twice as much as the Americans. Unless your enemy has more money
Swedes/Germans – you must follow their human rights philosophies or no spares
Russians – no spares to give, no cares to give,
Chinese – spares made in China
J-20 sometimes I think your original and twisted sense of humour flies over many peoples’ head!
Pretty pretty close to the bone….with just some truth….anyway made me smile 😉
TonyThanks for letting us know you’re here all week!
(thanks I will try the fish…..I love Dover Sole)
Tony@LoneWolf
Cooper was on ACIG.info and for a time in the early 2000s he was the only one getting out info on the Iranians.
Where do you think he got his info from? It was of course mainly from former Iranian Air Force pilots! (some through his Iranian collaborator on his book).
Nothing wrong with that…..during the war both sides made claims but some were not entirely correct and especially the verifiable kills.
E.g. an aircraft was damaged but can be made operational again…..to get the full (and correct picture) you need corroboration, usually from as many multiple sources as you can…same as you would do for any conflict. That is the only way to verify and build up the picture of what happened with dates of raids, names and units of pilots, numbers of aircraft involved etc. over the almost decade-long Iraq-Iran war. Some of the Iranian claims in Cooper’s book were later debunked….I am sure you are aware ACIG.info has a detailed database.
It is up to you whether you chose to have confidence or not in Sheytanelkebir…..he doesn’t post often but you can read some of his earlier posts to get an idea and judge for yourself….I certainly learned new stuff from him from the other side of the conflict. In my opinion he is one of the posters who has something to say that should be considered……it’s up to you to judge for yourself. No more from me on this.
Added later:
I hadn’t been on ACIG for years…..that forum is no longer active….I am sure the detailed database of the Iraq-Iran war is archived somewhere…Sean O’Connor, SOC an old moderator here may know because he used to post there (still argued with me and could not bring himself to believe there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time of the second Gulf war even after Pres W Bush confirmed there was nothing there! 😉
TonyFirst of all, all the reports came from Al Nusra/ Al Qaeda/ White Helmets. The “moderate” terrorists are unequivocally recorded as using chlorine gas and sarin in both Iraq and Syria. Even the Turks caught “moderate” terrorists with Sarin!
Madrat, you need to ask yourself what was the CIA station chief in Benghazi doing and who facilitated the transfer of Libyan
Grad rockets, tanks and other weapons to the “moderate” terrorists in Syria via Turkey and Jordan?
No chemical analysis was done at the time of the chemical attacks as requested by Russia and Syria. When the Syrian stocks were destroyed under international supervision the signature of the stocks became known to Porton Down for example if anyone wants to frame the Syrian government. There were real attacks by the “moderate” terrorists to use an excuse for intervention by America. Thankfully the UK parliament voted against an illegal war against a sovereign country while as the same time as saying special forces don’t count as an illegal war (the international criminal court awaits) and setting up and funding the White Helmets seen in enough gruesome terrorist beheading and killing videos. There are also videos made by Al Nusra/ HTS of people with shaving foam smeared amateurishly on victims who suddenly smile at the wrong moment! The funniest one is where the terrorists were supposed to be helping “victims” and one if them tried to pull a head covering off an old man who angrily lashes out at the young man pulling off his head covering seconds after playing a dying chemical weapon victim covered in shaving foam!
TonyThe people supplying MANPADS to HTS also known as Al Qaeda (or more accurately the same lot as the Saudi hijackers from WTF (Wahabhi Terrorist Fiefdom of Saudi Arabia) in Syria should ask themselves if it was wrong for Al Qaeda to bomb the Twin Towers killing 3,000 Americans why is ok to supply weapons to the same terrorists in Syria?
In fact WTF are the Americans doing in a Sovereign country who had not invited them in and why are the Americans aiding and abetting Al Nusra/HTS/Al Qaeda in Syria? How would the Americans like the Syrians coming in uninvited up the Potomac River? That would be illegal under international law just like the Americans are doing in Syria.
TonyRIP to pilot.
TonyLooks similar to the Camp Bastion raid in Helmand, Afghanistan by 15 Taliban terrorists in 2012 when at least 6 AV-8B Harriers of the US Marine Corps were destroyed and two AV-8B Harriers severely damaged, along with a C-130 Hercules. The 8 Harriers made up 6% of the total Marine Corp inventory. Two Marines were killed, with severe damage to hangers, refuelling stations and other infrastructure.
The UK Parliament Defence Committee investigated the incident and concluded only 11 of 24 guard towers on the base had been manned. Prince Harry was on the base at the time.
Unlike this mortar attack, the Taliban terrorists fixed explosives to some planes and RPGs to destroy other aircraft. Lining aircraft up like this is an inviting target…..securing base perimeters is a big problem with all air bases, be they expeditionary or fixed. Mobile 81mm mortars can be set up a few kilometres away and cause severe damage….but require ample manpower resources to prevent….with the recent withdrawal of Russian forces it remains to be seen if they’ll beef up defences as many people warned….to be fair it was rocket attacks that were thought to be the danger.
Sign In
