dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,536 through 2,550 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291285
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Not the same pilots.. He is not quoting Schirdewahn or Penrice, but a normal frontline RAF pilot who gets no financial benefit from the jet’s manufacturer.

    I was referring to the DoD & MoD pilots that are part of the testing and training programs.

    Really?

    Yes, really.

    I did not say that it could not SC, just that I would like to see some apples to apples comparisons. To make those comparisons you would have to know some more details like fuel state, altitude, etc, etc.

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291430
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Yeahhh, I never buy what frontline pilots say who fly the thing for a living as well, only I know what it can really do in my head.

    Funny, F-35 naysayers discount those same pilots when they say something good about the F-35.

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291455
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    listen 1:10 onwards about sc:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7481172.stm

    Seriously??? Sorry But I have to throw one 🙂

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/polls_BS_Flag_Product_4325_254074_a.jpg

    He actually said the EF can Supercruise at 40k feet and only burn 2x idle fuel rate…

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291505
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I think most, including the EF, need “more info required” when it comes to altitude, fuel state, loadout, and distance in SC. Also, was the speed constant or was it coasting?

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291517
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    By that I assume we can stop making the claims that it can supercruise?

    Sure, just as soon as Rafale, Eurofighter, etc do the same. 😉

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291540
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I rather get to the target later but with enough fuel reserve than vice versa..

    Me too, which is likely one reason why SC (in any form) was not a JSF requirement.

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291584
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Since transonic drag at m1.0 is higher than m1.2, it’s entirely possible that it needs a little AB to maintain 1.0 but none to maintain 1.2.

    We also do not know the altitudes, fuel states, or loadouts of either of these statements.

    in reply to: F-16 and dual missiles pylon #2291665
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Good catch.

    It leads me to believe that some of these numbers are conservative in nature and may deal with the specific launcher involved and not the capacity of the hardpoint itself.

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291689
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    What is the TR3 and 4??

    In F-35 speak, a TR is a Tech Refresh.

    The plan for the F-35’s Block upgrades has been two fold, primarily software changes at every Block upgrade and hardware (TRs) changes every other Block.

    There has been one TR already in the program and it came during Blk0.5/1 (see graphic below). While every Block upgrade may have minor hardware changes like adding a card or two, TRs are reserved for major architecture changes and upgrades. For example, TR1 saw the change from four Single chip (or core?) GP modules to 2 Quad GP modules.

    TR2 will take place as part of Block 3I (same as Block 2B but on TR2). Details of what TR2 covers are not publicly known.

    So, following the above plan, Blocks 3&4 will be on TR2, Blocks 5&6 will be on TR3, 7&8 will be on TR4, etc.

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/dfccd5f8.jpg

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291730
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Btw (and this is a genuine question, not trolling), any GaN modules scheduled?

    Maybe TR3 or 4.. but hose have not been publicly announced yet.

    Heck, little is known publicly about TR2 🙂

    in reply to: F-16 and dual missiles pylon #2291881
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    f-35 use the same pylon as f-16

    The F-35’s pylons may seem similar to the F-16’s, but they are unique. One thing to remember is the F-35 pylons are rated to 5000lbs (but only the inner station can hold that much).

    Btw the two outer station of F-35 can’t carry aim-120 right ?

    No, the outer station is rated for 300 lbs which is too light for the AMRAAM.

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/F-35_Weapon_Stations.jpg

    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    http://alert5.com/2013/04/01/south-korea-to-buy-41-f-35bs/

    Really??? Wiki as a source on a breaking news item. 🙂

    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Great.. It’s that time of year where I can’t trust anything for the next 48 hours 🙂

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2293391
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Good for them…

    You do realize that aggressors do not mimic US hardware & tactics, right?

    http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/#post260393

    in reply to: Turkish Air Force – News & Discussion #2296449
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    A picture which is claimed as the representational TF-X picture from the two-day International Air&Space Power (ICAP) Conference being held in Istanbul .

    Is it just me or do those intakes look WAY too big.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,536 through 2,550 (of 4,849 total)