It is also depend on specific mission
above all it depends on if there is external fuel tanks included in the estimate, like the above pic does,
but dont expect f-35 to make it above 650 nm combat radius on any mission without external fuel tanks and/or refuelling,
and dont expect f-35 to make 800 nm with fuel tanks either
from what i understand it was a choice between CFT vs redesigning land gear to boost range,
the latter was decided on, when it became clear how much it could accomplish
There’s so much stupidity in it, but here’s one that stuck out a lot:
Over 700 nm combat radius on internal fuel but it has less range than an F-16! And of course they always talk about the F-35’s “limited range” and “limited payload” but I have yet to see a plane with “unlimited range” or “unlimited payload”.
(I should also mention that the link it uses as a citation for this claim doesn’t even talk about the F-35’s range, other than that they accepted a range reduction in 2012 during the program restructure.)
err, no, combat range on internal fuel is around 600 nm
strategic targets isnt going to be attacked with free fall nukes,
and i cant for the life of me see NL dropping free fall nukes on brigades either,
i think its a non issue.
the most challenging task is timely interception,
even the better interceptors will be hard pressed, trainers isnt going to cut it
russia picked up on it, but its the different seeker you want,
its better if both are equally fast so the timing of intercept can be consistent
given the very modest difference in purchase & operational cost between gripen C and E,
i for one can not justify opting for C.
since their EF cant be sold, there must be a reason i’m not aware of to fork up the dough
for another fighter until their T1 is worn out
…Colonel Michael W. Pietrucha…the former EW (Beeps and Squeaks) instructor added…terminate the air force’s participation in the F-35 programme…
He is arguing that soldiers should continue practicing their sword fighting skills in case that gunpowder thing doesn’t pan out. :highly_amused:
he is arguing that f-35 level stealth & speed is pike and shot era,
an arquebus gun that merely complement good ole pikes
i currently stay in a 3rd world country, and a no-skill job here is 200 buck also
“observed” without clue of fuel state or even accurate angle is worth squat
The JAS 39 Gripen is an aerodynamic statically
unstable aircraft in the pitch axis at subsonic speeds
with a time to double amplitude of approximately 0.4
seconds.
correct me if i’m wrong, but does this mean pitch doubles every 0.4 seconds ?
i wonder if any fighter out there bar EF has this rate of pitch,
f-22 might be able to thanks to thrust vectoring but then again there were comments
it had issues with EF
errr, “the aircraft could be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha. ” (parked as in, controlled flight, indefinitely)
why would it have issues doing 50 aoa ? other than the fact that it slow the fighter down, that is
i think what blackarcher meant was: in software controlled flight, gripen does not exceed 26 AoA,
software will see to it that it doesnt go further.
i wonder if its common to override software limit among regular pilots ?
is there disciplinary measures taken if they do ?
it may not be the smartest thing to do in a many vs many scenario,
but i think the pilots will have an itch to pull 12g on occasion
There is a possibility for the pilot to override the soft
stop in an emergency situation and pull the control
stick back to the hard stop and thus get an extra 3g,
when aircraft speed is above 600 km/h. This requires
an extra stick force of approximately 135 N.
i didnt know gripen has an override mode over the normal soft limited envelope,
how much more AoA is required to add another another 3g ?
altho the graph display up to 90 degree AoA, he discusses mostly only up to 45 AoA
just remember to make the outer wheel larger and you’ll be fine
i dont think its going to be a pretty sight if anyone misses the g string on the first pic.
pretty is as pretty does and i prefer the angled ship