ijozicThe similarity between the Yak-141 & the F-35B is in the swivelling main nozzle, but agree about why it was canned. The money went away with the break-up of the USSR & the crash of the Russian economy.
Yeah, maybe at least Admiral Gorshkov would have remained in service with the useful Yaks (the 38s were basically useless).
Back to the topic at hand (YF-23 would have been my choice as well), but are there any design changes planned for PAK FA when the engines intended for it are done (IIRC, it currently uses the engine developed from the ones on Su-35S)? The wiki entry seems to indicate that these will be a drop-in replacement.. That would be a shame cause I really like parts of the PAK FA design, biggest issue being the bottom rounded engine bays (Flanker style) and exhausts.. IMHO, it totally doesn’t fit the intakes shape and kills the general appearance of the bird. They should be more squared like on the top side plus more squared exhausts like on the F-22 (if I understand correctly, the vectoring thrust nozzles are not 3D, but operate in a single plane so some better looking nozzle design should be possible)..
ijozicWell, my comment was meant to be critical of the notion that VTOL (as distinct from STOVL) is very useful. The difference is important. STOVL is the really useful thing, & needs a runway to take off. It’s not ‘a subset of VTOL’, IMO, it’s what the F-35B is designed for, how it’s meant & expected to be used. The ability to make emergency landings on anything flat within reach is a marginal advantage compared to the others I mentioned.
Ok, but the VTOL usefulness (unprepared strips, helicopter carriers, etc.) was never my argument, but the one I was questioning.
I understand the difference between VTOL and STOVL as operations, but I just mentioned ‘VTOL variant’ (of the F-35) as another reference to the F-35B. Hence why I said STOVL is a subset of capabilities of a VTOL plane as, AFAIK, any VTOL capable military aircraft can and probably is used as a STOVL where possible to be able to bring any significant payload up with it. But, this is all digressing really.
ijozicI think you are confusing VTOL & STOVL. F-35B has advantages (& some resulting disadvantages) because it is STOVL. It can take off in a shorter distance than other fast jets (but not, in normal operations, vertically), & land vertically. The ability to land vertically is a huge advantage in naval operations. In an emergency, the aircraft can land on almost anything with a landing pad – even one not built specifically for it. It is much, much easier to land on a carrier vertically than conventionally: that means training is easier, quicker & cheaper. Also, operations can be possible in worse sea states than for cat & trap carriers.
I’m not confusing anything, STOVL capability is a subset of capabilities of a VTOL plane, I don’t see why, if the F-35B is used STOVL normally, it cannot be referenced as a VTOL plane. But, the context WAS actually VTOL operations as the “advantages” part was not saying there are no advantages whatsoever, but was referring to the original post by lukos I commented and you got onto commenting:
“Think about all round flexibility. Unprepared runways and short hop front-line VTOL or emergency VTOL from helicopter carriers.”
So, operational VTOL from unprepared runways and emergency VTOL (not vertical landing only, but take off, thus operations) from helicopter carriers as potential advantages.
Emergencies can include fuel issues, so you can’t get back to the carrier. They can also relate to the carrier itself: it might be temporarily impossible to land on it, & the aircraft can’t stay in the air for long waiting to land. It might even be sunk – but any aircraft in the air (or able to take off before it goes under) may be possible to save, even if no other runway is within range. At least one Harrier (& pilot) has been saved by landing on a cargo ship in a peacetime emergency. Avionics failures: navigation system & radio. Was almost out of fuel.
Yes, there are definitely some cases possible and you don’t have to go on and name all of them. The point I was trying to make here was that I’d expect that the actual number of those situations where the plane was saved by an emergency vertical landing compared to when the plane crashed was not significant in case of which it would not be a noteworthy operational advantage. I’m pretty sure there were lots of Harrier losses due to emergencies like technical failures caused by malfunctions and/or bird strikes, but finding a number of these emergency landings where pilots and potentially the planes were saved is not so easy.
ijozicVTOL isn’t & never has been a realistic operational option. To the best of my knowledge, it’s only been used operationally for moving Harriers from the transport Atlantic Conveyor to carriers, during the Falklands war. They took off vertically unarmed & with light fuel loads. Two of ’em had been on standby with a pair of AAMs each on the way down, but that was for emergency, last-ditch use only, when the alternative was losing the ship – & maybe the whole convoy. Harrier can’t carry a useful load a useful distance if it takes off vertically. Neither can F-35B.
But in an emergency, I’m sure you could land an F-35B vertically on any steel deck strong enough not to collapse under it. The deck is damaged? Repair it. It’s cheaper than replacing the F-35B.
Ok, hence my point where I doubt those “advantages” of the F-35B over the F-35C. Regarding the emergency part, I was not thinking in terms of emergency landings, but emergency operations, like your Falklands example with the A.C. Obviously, that’s one potential benefit of a VTOL variant, though I doubt there are many realistic usecases where the emergency on a single engine VTOL would still allow you to land the plane in a safe and controllable manner.
ijozicThink about all round flexibility. Unprepared runways and short hop front-line VTOL or emergency VTOL from helicopter carriers. We have to make the purchase incompatible with a lot of carriers just to allow the Rafale to operate from 2 ships.
Is that really a realistic option? IIRC, the high temperature might spall most of the runways out there, not to mention FOD concerns. Not sure if these helicopter carriers would face similar spalling problems and would require some modifications to allow for F-35B take-off/landing (e.g. installing the special landing pads or hardening the existing ones) which obviously takes time and money and thus needs to be planned and performed ahead of the potential emergency.
ijozicGoing with the F-35B may mean that the Rafale won’t be able to operate from the Queen Elizabeth, but it does offer improved interoperability with other F-35B operators such as the USMC, a far larger community with a lot more ships. (which may include Australia, Singapore, Italy, and perhaps even S.Korea and Japan before all is said and done.)
But when would all that interoperability be put to use in practice? The French one would be more like a defense partnership IIRC and thus bears much more weight. Not to mention that not having a catapult severely limits the types of planes which can be used (no AEW, refueling aircraft, etc.), not to mention the reduced weapons and fuel (and thus range) payload.
But this was all discussed ad nauseam probably.
ijozicSo the firing parties have no excuse as to mis-recognition, given that Buk is fitted with a powerful EO system.
IIRC, the electro-optical kit is optional and doesn’t have to be installed on the SA-11. It also depends on who was operating the launcher and how well trained he was.
But the article comparing this to the Vincennes incident in regards to optical recognition is pointless. The Aegis equipped cruiser fired from a much longer range where optical identification would be impossible (not trying to downplay the incident here or to defend the appalling US reaction in the aftermath).
ijozicAn An-26 had already been shot down at a similar altitude therefore Section H, 43-46 applies:
IIRC, it was reported in the news that it was at 6500 m which is much below 10000, although I don’t know how accurate that information was.
ijozicYou did call it that. Ultimately no flights should have been flying in that area. Ukrainian ATC was the only one in control of that.
No, somebody else did before, I just accepted it to make a different point while disclaiming that I don’t want to get into the usefulness of that definition and if it can be applied here.
Nonetheless, the Ukrainian side can be held responsible if they had information that the rebels obtained such a weapon; for instance, it might have been supplied by Russia or brought in from the Crimea in secret and they had no such information, why would they forbid the civilian traffic? Although, it would be interesting to know if their military flights were flying at or above 10000 meters over that area before or not.
ijozicDon’t be an idiot. It’s not a war crime, fact. It’s a terrible accident that could in fact be written up more accurately as corporate manslaughter at a push.
I never called it that; my point was that you’re downplaying one wrongdoing because some other is getting downplayed, too. Yes, the plane was obviously shot down by accident but someone needs to be held responsible for that. E.g. if the Ukrainian side knew that the rebels could posses such a weapon (e.g. it was captured at some base), someone is ultimately responsible for not closing the area for civilian traffic; or if the rebels were supplied by the other side in secret, they should be held responsible.
ijozicYou’ve got to love the way that deliberately firing into places where you know there are civilians is okay, if they’re on the ground, but accidentally targeting a civilian airliner that you didn’t even know was there is a war crime.
Your point being what exactly? (Without going into the usefulness – or lack of – of a “war crime” designation), I hope you’re not saying that this should not be a war crime then and thus instead of fixing one injustice, we should introduce more of them?
If you’re not trying to say this, then it makes no sense to bring the comparison up in the first place..
ijozicPS : Range of R-60M and R-60MK is 12 Km head-on and 8 Km chase-on.
12 and 8? The second one is perhaps the kinematic range in an ideal case, not the engagement range which is probably less than a third of that value (depending on the altitude and speed). The first is also a max in an ideal case at high altitude where the target maintains its course and speed. The idea that an Su-25 would be used to intercept the airliner is absurd. Theoretically it would be possible, but it would be very difficult in practice and require a decent amount of luck as well.
ijozicMalaysian airliner was shot down by air to air missile. When BUK missile explode by proximity fuse, it explode spherically, so fragments fly in all directions and HE-FRAG warhead have around 70 kg. On the picture we could see, that fragments went horizontally in one direction only like with shot gun and toward the engine. This indicate the missile was IR guided R-73 or R-27T from Ukrainian fighter.
Nice copy/paste job. You could at least give a link to the forum you’ve copied it from to give credit where credit’s due. But still, what is this “spherical” fragmentation? Are you saying it has a simple ball of shrapnel? That would be very inefficient so it probably develops fragmentation patterns to concentrate the shrapnel.
Besides, these photos don’t prove anything without some expert analysis and some obscure forum is hardly a place where such reside. For instance, besides the obvious choice as being a part of the fragmentation pattern zig zag line, if it’s the bottom side of the wing, couldn’t such damage perhaps be e.g. also caused by turbine pieces of the damaged engine?
But, you’re probably right – everybody’s so naive and fooled by the media spinning the most logical scenario and there is some massive conspiracy going on involving a lot of people in the U.S. government, military (AWACS staff, etc.), Ukraine government and military (pilots, airbase staff, technical staff noticing a plane returns without its missiles, etc.), ATC, etc. and everybody’s tight lipped about it except some guy called Carlos. But it was all for naught and they got busted by some experts on some Russian forum.
ijozicIt is incredibly astonishing that, notwithstanding the fact that the ukr. controllers directed the plane over a war zone that had multiple aircraft shoot downs, the MH17 overflew the exact site of the ONLY Buk in the whole of that region the rebels are sort of confirmed to have. Not a bit further south, not a bit further north, but EXACTLY there (the Buk doesn’t have that long of a range anyway).
Wow, perhaps because there were many other civilian airliners passing over the general area that same day before the fatal flight (within the stated air corridor so maybe they went “a bit further north” or “a bit further south” or the radar was not searching for targets then)? Your flawed conclusion supposes that this plane was the target, rather than an unfortunate casualty.
ijozicTop NATO general says rebel SAM operators received recent training in Russia. You know what I don’t understand is why would Putin supply them with Buks when the Tors would’ve offered a lot of capability without the risk to high altitude commercial air traffic.
Tor doesn’t quite reach high enough for the Ukrainian surveillance planes.
Sign In
