dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,201 through 1,215 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2139585
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Btw, i read “no rivet etc. really? see the panel above the mech…

    Those are not rivets but access latches. They are treated and are flush to the surface of the skin.

    This is what I was referring too.

    https://i.imgur.com/8TvuDmF.jpg

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2139977
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The JPO negotiates each contract for each partner..all they would have required would have been to inform the JPO and they would get deliveries probably within 3-3.5 years.

    FY2017 F-35As begin delivery in May of 2018. If Canada ordered F-35s today, they can get in on the tail end of the FY2017 run and start getting jets in early to mid 2019.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2140034
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    You’ve mistaken it for a politician.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140080
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Sure it can.. at certain altitude and load-out, just like any other fighter that claims SC capability.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140085
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    for instance, a pilot claiming ‘f-35 can maintain mach 1.2 for 150 miles albeit not supercruise in a technical sense without ‘fuelgulping’ afterburners, while a previous pilot just stated the month before it only took ‘a little bit a/b to stay supersonic,
    then the logical conclusion is, the 150 miles @ M1.2 is true, the ‘without fuelgulping a/b’ refer to ‘just a teeny weeny bit a/b’
    -ergo ‘not supercruise in a technical sense’

    That has been debated to death. I can be explained in a myriad of ways including different flight profiles, loads, etc without ever needing ANY A/B of any kind.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140388
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    by the looks of it smaller tanks too

    Probably because it can’t carry anything larger.

    in reply to: F-35 consumes 5000lb fuel and flew 1450 Km. #2140397
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Just the airframe…

    That is a “clean” airframe, not a “sleek” one.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140461
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Take your pick… Pak-Fa, J-20, J-31, etc

    Given that you are buying a jet that you are planning on using for 30+ years, it makes sense to plan ahead for potential adversaries. You can already see that 5th gen platforms are being developed by the nations that generated the adversary fighters that you train against today (Mig, Sukoi, etc).

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140470
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    ok, so its down to carrying 50% more aam than F-35, (or using their words: 4RR + 2IR)

    lol.. It’s save to say that EVERY user on the planet would gladly give up 2 WVR missiles in order to have the F-35’s VLO RCS. Good luck getting close enough in a GripenE to use them in a 5th gen fight. :stupid:

    in reply to: F-35 consumes 5000lb fuel and flew 1450 Km. #2140500
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    this gem caught my attention

    Yup.. none of the typical items that “dirty” up a jet like

    –comms antennas
    –rivets
    –multiple air data probes
    –Air refueling probe
    –No visible gun port on the F-35A
    –visible chaff/flare dispensers
    –visible towed decoy dispenser
    –ESM apetures
    –external pods (FLIR, ESM, etc)
    –external stores
    –EFTs

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140564
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Gripen E – 800 nm + 30+ min. on station with 4 aam

    Where did it say that the 800nm range was with 4 AAMs instead of just two wingtip AAMs?

    4 AAMs would mean only two BVR.

    Here is another SAAB pic showing 1300km (ie 701nm) combat radius with 4BVR in a European scenario, so much for that being a “hot & humid” scenario.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]249975[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140718
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    What KPP did the F-35 miss by more than 10%?

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140813
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The analysis was done in 2007 or 2008

    Also bare in mind that a vast majority of the time, the F-35A’s combat radius (590nm with w/o SDD buffer) is referring to the A2G config while carrying 4000lb of JDAMs. In the A2A role (4 AAMs), the F-35A’s combat radius (assumed to include the SDD buffer) is 760nm.

    http://i.imgur.com/jMDocjY.png

    Here is the GripenNG range from the Brazilian info with external tanks (in A2A mode). It’s 1300km with is 701nm.

    http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads//2010/07/alcance-gripenNG.jpg

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140942
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    As we have seen by Canada’s politicians du-jour, there is a urgency.
    And lets say after the Tender is done after months/years?(see other similar tender) and F-35 won. how fast could Canada procure F-35A as there are many other Nations on the order list?
    Come on!! We are talking years over years here.

    FIFY…

    btw, there is headroom built into the F-35 program so that nobody has to “cut in line” and you can have a shiny new F-35 about 2.5 years after placing the order. That 2.5 years is the same for any modern fighter, unless you cut in line (ala Egypt & Rafale).

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2140965
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I have not followed all the ins and outs of the CF-18 replacement saga but I do remember reports of LM trying to persuade some Canadian entity to sign up for F-35 when (I think) the Canadian government had made it clear that several options were to be evaluated before a decision was made. It would not surprise me if the Canadian government developed a deep dislike of Lockheed Martin as a result.

    The Canadian Government joined the SDD program in 2002 and signed the Production MOU in 2006.

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/76631/canada-signs-mou-for-next-stage-of-jsf.html

    Funny…. nobody back then mentioned that “several options were to be evaluated” before Canada rushed to become the second Partner to sign the MOU. Wonder what the hurry was if there were other options that needed evaluation?

Viewing 15 posts - 1,201 through 1,215 (of 4,849 total)