dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,326 through 2,340 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: best looking stealth fighter #2268766
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    With all things being equal, don’t high wing fighters have a lower roll rate and are therefore less maneuverable?

    in reply to: best looking stealth fighter #2268796
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The X-32/35 planes were Tech (or Concept) Demonstrators, not Prototypes. Their job was to validate primarily the propulsion and secondly any unique and untried tech from their respective companies.

    The X-35, since it was from the same company that brought us the F-22, did not have to demonstrate a bay since the F-22 had already done it.

    Boeing, OTOH, not only did not have any bay experience, but wanted to use an untried tilting bomb & missile rack.

    Remember that what was required in the X-32/35 program was tightly controlled by the JPO and both companies went above the spec. An example of which was LM doing aerial refueling, Mission-X Flight, etc. Boeing’s bays may have been an example of going above the spec.

    in reply to: best looking stealth fighter #2268813
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    No it did not as it was not required being a tech demonstrator.

    in reply to: F-35 News & Multimedia thread #2269173
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    USG doesn’t have a f-15 run to FMS off, so it’s a boeing sale

    Not necessarily as both the recent F-15SA and F-15SG sales were FMS.

    in reply to: F-35 News & Multimedia thread #2269244
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The issue is that being an FMS sale means that the client pays the same as everyone else, IIRC.

    I think that this is why Boeing went DCS for a majority of the airframe.

    in reply to: Your Favorite Hornet/Super Hornet pics. #2270132
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    what do you think about this version?really a JSF Killer?

    Not even close.

    I doubt the USN will ever fund it in it’s entirety, especially the engines.

    Considering that the USN did not fund an internal IRST when they had a chance but instead went with a *******ized solution involving mounting it on the centerline tank.

    in reply to: best looking stealth fighter #2270227
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Seriously???

    #1 & #2 are the X/F-32 “Monica”?

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Shark_zpsfdb2632f.gif

    :eagerness:

    in reply to: Romania's fighter indecesion 2013!! #2270541
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    There is a big difference between “second hand” Swedish Gripens and “almost new” South African ones where the newest one was delivered last year.

    in reply to: Romania's fighter indecesion 2013!! #2270549
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    How about the South African Gripens?

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News and Updates #2271744
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I know.. We can enhance the list when they are in the series.

    Understandable… here are the current F-15 numbers.

    The F-15C/D APG-63(v)3 program started its series delivery and will have installed 54 by the end of FY2013. The last APG-63(v)3 is scheduled for delivery in FY2018 and will bring the total up to 156 APG-63(v)3 delivered.

    The F-15E APG-82 program started its series delivery of install kits in FY2013. The last APG-82 is scheduled for delivery in FY2022 and will bring the total up to 219 APG-82s delivered.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News and Updates #2271884
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Don’t forget the USAF F-15Es have already started their APG-82 upgrade program.

    Then there are the announced contracts and near term decisions:

    ROK awarded the F-16 upgrade contract to Raytheon’s RACR
    Taiwanese F-16s will either be RACR (likely) or SABR.
    Many US F-16s will be upgraded to RACR or SABR

    in reply to: Your Favorite Hornet/Super Hornet pics. #2271889
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Don’t forget MADL which will allow all the F-35s to share data without giving their position away.

    in reply to: Raytheon Aim-9X Block III #1789730
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    If you adapted the current AMRAAM attachment style, then you would have ejector AND rail launch capability. This would also mean that it could use the current AMRAAM compatible rails and ejectors from across the fleet.

    If the attachment points could be swapped out, then the current AIM-9 rails could also be used.

    in reply to: Raytheon Aim-9X Block III #1789736
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I wonder if they will keep it as a rail-only launch type?

    Giving it a ejector launch capability should lessen the integration time needed and would allow for two to be mounted in the F-35’s internal bay rather easily while still leaving the door AMRAAM.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2273914
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Yeah. That is a piece of very early fan-art (notice the wing-tip AIM-9s).

    Currently the F-35 can carry a TOTAL of 4 AAMs (total count from both internal bays). Design studies have been done by Lockheed’s Skunk Works where they have said that a TOTAL of 6 can be carried if a new rack is designed for the A2G station and some minor changes are made to the bay. 6 AAMs is part of the notional plan for Blk5.

    Here is an LM screen cap showing what it would look like.

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/06ba78d6.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 2,326 through 2,340 (of 4,849 total)