over GI thought the whole “supersonic, very low level, terrain following” idea is being replaced by the idea of stealth, the F-35. No need to fly under the radar,but slip through it.
Of course 🙂
I would love to know, why in the Gulf War, the opening air strike campaign did start with attacks done by AH-64 flying very low against Iraq radars stations then 🙂
Since that attack everything become easy cake, for f-117’s, f-18’s, f-15’s etc…
over Ga automatic translation of an article
advantage that the typhoon also has of course!interesting to learn that on top of training areas and facilities france offer AWCS and refulers services.
That is relative in which weight the configuration is, the rafale airframe seems generates more lift, and is a naval optimiced (better said..compatible) airframe also.
At least about take-off run/ordenance i would say Rafale is better, in low level, the performances and shows of the Rafale are good, so that could be taken as a sign, would’nt be a surprise if the Rafale performs a much better climb in the first 5000 mts than the Typhoon…and who knows.. probably this could be a triumph card for the Rafale
BTw… at which level difference from the sea level is the test being performed?
How the planes performed in the operative readiness parameter?, both rafale and Typhoon are complex , i cant tell about the grippen..
What i read and see in this forum, is one side pro-Typhoon, claiming is the best thing from the sliced bread -without any hard data, but a lot of claims in the web….funny with english/american source-, other side reacting to these claims (in a wrong way), and well of course a neutral side with a more objetive criteria..
The Typhoon and Rafale issue is still a mystery for me, not a lot data available, and both designs are very close in concept and performances..
Would like to know how both type of engines are performing in the test..
Besides all that, are the Typhoon/Rafale holding any FAI record?, you know with all media overhipping…that both have the best climb ever,speed, SC, best practical payload, 4+++++++++ generation planes (an annoying habit the russians aren learning too), etc.. i really dont see any objetive reason to believe in that…specially when an old good bird seems is performing better…
http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?from=r&id=5557
Note..is not the P-42..
over GOk, im confused, most of what i know about rockets and ICBM’s and all that space stuff is based in loose articules and web reports, so if somebody would be gentle to explain me this…
-TopolM is a solid fuel rocked? (Y/N)
-SS-24 is based from the TopolM? (Y/N)
-The Bulave is a sister of the SS-24? (Y/N)
-Ther is a link between the Topol and the Bulava? (Y/N)
Now, if the Sileva (SS-24?) is a liquid fuel based rocked, i would understand why the ruskis are thinking on trains, since a liquid based propulsion would be a hell to develop in a small system like a big trailer…(EDIT)Other, than, welll, seems the topol weight is just 40 tons , whule the ss-24 is 100 tons, ok that should be the main reason…
Now, since the Bulava seems to be a solid fuel rocked (and a light one…seems), why then not better to wait until the bulava achieve all the goals and instead that unsafe train/SS-24 (i know, just my personal opinion) better to mount the bulavas on big trailers?
Both the Topol and Bulava will not have any influence in the russian space program?, seems the NASA is thinking in solid rockets as the future launcher concept in the space exploration with the Ares program.
over GI’m not sure you’re getting the most honest assessment of the F-22 from him
You know, that is interesting, every guy who dares to say something bad about the F-22 should be seen suspiciously….you should understand also that the trench is not good, and lockheed i quiet about these issues..
The F-22 fleet has accumulated 50,000 hrs and still isn’t considered a mature system
You know, unsuccessful programs take also a lot of time considered as “non-mature” systems
Considering that the USAF has stated the average time for LO repair is 80-100 hrs and guys are working 6 days a week on 12 hour shifts in the LO shop just trying to keep up
Can you tell me specifically what is the big deal with the LO maintenance of the Raptor?, the RAM materials are not that exotic, and about matters of stealthy tech, the most costly factor is the RAM deposition with special technics, that should not demand a lot of maintenance since the material is with a treatement -and i dont think the hangars hold high temperature depotition equipment-, yes i understand that some materials are joined with glue, but the RAM percentage on the raptor is low, i would say that USAF claim is for the F-117, but for the raptor i doubt it a lot….seriously, tell me where is the big deal od the stealthy maintenace? aligned panels?, structure checks?, checkin auxiliar airflow doors? i still dont get it…
Time will tell, im not very found with the “LO maintenance” argument
the F-35 will have its own problems and almost certainly cost more than is being claimed at the moment
Yes i undertand that, but the program is still under development, so is suceptible of a larger improvement, the f-22 development is “over”, dragging more and more airframes with such kind of problems will just end in a huge Raptor graveyard
About the spare parts issue, well that could be the most ojetive and real reason -or excuse- of the low operational record, time will tell, but seriously i dont buy the “LO maintenance working shift”, specially when you are saying that in excersices the rate of readiness was good…What is the readiness on operations and excersices is telling us?, is there are a bunch of raptors that are doing nothing for weeks, and there are few that are flying constantly, so these raptors (God i hate that childish name that plane has) are or in overhauling or without parts, and i have not read/heard anything about the later.
over GSaying one plane will turn better than other will not tell all the picture, at which level is done the turn?, at which speed?, is instantaneus?, is sustained? is a special maneouvre turn? (climbing at the same time, for example), for sure the j-10 will have better inst. turn rate, but in general better aspect wing gives you better sustained turn rate.
About the drag issue, that is relative, the J-10 most likely will use EFT in their missions, the flanker , most likely will not need it, that could give the flanker a better initial condition.
We can be forever here, and this debate will not end, the claim of a pilot is ok -even if most of the times is biased), but then again it doesnt say everything, the claim of a journalist just based in how quiclkly a plane did a take off is something that should not be taken seriosly
over GAccording with some reports, the operative availability of the f-22 is arround 65%, we are not talking about stealthy problems there..i mean is not that you keep your planes on the ground because your RCS is 4-10 m2…we are talking about serious maintenance problems, fatige, engine tearing, flying safety standars etc.., and we are talking about a brand new plane…this last point is the most alarming
Buying more f-22 with such problems, will end just buying 22’s for cannibalization
Better to focus all the resources on the F-35 program, and if the USAF would need more planes to replacement then just buy more of them.
over GThe Bulava really represent a new generation for such kind of weapons? , or is just the “solid fuel rocket” russian venture?
Is not a rail-mounted missile very vulnerable to a terrorist attack?, it also needs a huge infrastructure to be supported, and has a limit for that infrastructure, the russians are thinking seriously about a train/missile system? ins not that im an expert in ICBM’s or that stuff, just wondering…
over GI also think its questionable to go within bombing range with double digit SAM’s with an F-35, you’d probably still need to still invest in a stock of stand-off missiles.
Are you telling us the 35 can’t carry HARM’s on external pods?
over GThat depends on what you call RAM. RAM in the convetional form is rather scare on the F-22 and F-35, however structural parts made of composites that also have a secondary function as RAM or designed to the recduce radar signature will make up big parts of both airframes. And that is the point in which I have little faith in Russia. Producing complicated compisites structures on an industrial level for a decent price is not something they have shown to the world so far.
Well, the structure of the f-35/22 is quite conventional actually, and it doesnt have, for example a layout with a special angle orientation..so i think the structure at least in the 35/22 was not made for stealthy requirements, in the case of the 22, they went for a plastic airframe to acgieve the 12-14 ton empty weight, they found the plane tearing rate was too high…they increased the weight to keep the plane together :), the problem is that the airframe was already chosen, an aiframe designed for composite materials, and for a 14 tons empty weight…nice headache…
I agree with the russian composite/industry issue…but is more likely that thinking is based in the lack of information we have in the west
over GRadars are built in a modular way. That does mean, that those are forever young. Just a new kind of technology may change that. To bring a new radar-system to a combat ready level does take ~ten years. To fly something with a combat-ready radar in 2015 does mean, that the technological basis of the radar does date before 2005. The Russians do not throw away the related work of the MFI, what is dating back to the late 80s. Just the first gains of the new avionics can be seen in the SU-35BM from 2011.
The last F-15s are not outdated either, when it comes to the avionics.The most intresting thing of the PAK-FA will be, if the Russian will find a new generation of material to lower the weight penalty of that, the F-22 and F-35 are built from. Related to the scale of stealth, the present materials do add 20-30% of weight to an ordinary fighter. 😉
Are you counting “composite materials” as RAM :rolleyes:
The f-22 does’nt use a lot of RAM, and it increase of weight is more related with the structural problems the engineer team found with a plastic airframe for such project asigned for a lot of tasks.
About avionics , we don’t know, but as the UK pilots disliked the fixed AESA array.. i bet the russian pilots/commanders will dislike a fixed radar array, and would rather preffer the Irbis..
The f-35 use more RAM, but still it doent reach the 30-20% of the weight as you claim…other, than it overweight is related to design issues (a bomb bay divided in 2 due the single engine design, an layout not well compatible with a high fuel fraction/space)
So about that particular issue i don’t think the russians will find a great challenge..specially if they goes for some kind of lifting body design.
About the PAKFA pricture , Flex, i think the reasons why all the later speculations are looking the same is because there are not more speculations arround…i think is obvious everything is comming from the imagination than from the facts…i would be surprised if the PAKFA would use these small fins..
Medal64 can you post a link about these news? thanks
over GYou don’t know a damn thing about what is better suited for the defense of Norway. So spare us this BS.
The Gripen is definitely cheaper than F-35, no matter what bribed Norwegian analysts put on paper.
Maybe, maybe not, we are talking about the Gripen NG, a new development of the ja-39, it perhaps it does not have the money support from the Sweden goverment, perhaps (i really don’t know), the SAF don’t wan to buy many NG’s so it price remains relative high, is probable that is the reason why all that uncertainly about the costs from Saab, maybe is because that the norway goverment didnt get hard data about that issue.
On the other side, the F-35 price is relative low, and made by very optimist predictions, lets se what happens in the end..
over GYou guys fail to see that the high price of the Raptor and all the problems related to it development (and also the cost) is more related to the fiasco that was the ATF program than the real cost of the technology related….im sure the JSF will do it better, but still this program has many problems (the main one is the airframe chosen, due the VTOL requiremens, and maybe the high percentage of composites used), so not sure if actually it would be a complete technologic success, but im sure will be better than the Raptor.
The PAKFA program was a bit more cautious, they did started with an airframe of 20 tons, now they are working in an airframe that hopely will be at the 15 tons class, this is a good sign, at least to me, btw, for such small plane i would’nt expect that famous huge weapon bay, so many times speculated.
What i find challenging is the market for this new product, which countries would buy it?, the pakfa and the f-35 market battelfied will be interesting, now the f-35 has many countries in it pocked, pakfa only has India…
This talking about the world’s economy affecting the program is absurd, let start to talk about it only if the program gets cancelled…
I agree a lot of overhippe for an airplane that still is in the hangar for testing…..a lot of nationalism flying arround…a lot of anti-americanism too..
over GThe F-35 is becoming the F-104 of the 21rst century.
Time will tell, but i doubt it..i think the 35’s internal fuel capacity won the contract, and of course the industry-goverment links, but still a huge speculative competition, the f-35 is not in service yet, the NG situation was/is somewhat similar.
Let’s see if the price remains that low, but either way, the 35 is more capable than the gripen, and no, is not about stealth :rolleyes:
over Gday one
Seriously dont know who did start that “for the day 1 you wont need the full load weapon” tale, but it seems a recent tale…to hide the obvious shortcoming of the 35’s lack of weapon load
Well, is the day 1, the day that you need more weapons than ever…and since the f-35 is so into the “day 1” thinking, i find a bit funny it low internal weapon load
For the day one the Raptors for sure will need more than 6 miserable missiles, and external fuel tanks….at least for the day 1 the flanker (and i think the F-35) can avoid external fuel tanks…
I mean the practical RCS has a lot to do with the practical plane’s requirements
PPl, still claim about that aussi pilot, but im sure that if the f-22 wouldnt be able to be locked-on on visual range (and knowing how the USAF/Industry are so willing to show how cool is their aircraft) we should be drowing on a sea of nice HUD pics without the lock-on sign…instead of that we have a lucky leak…with a lock-on…and that aussi pilot tale
over GThe IR sensors don’t work good having an IR backround (earth surface),it detection range is seriously dimished becoming unpractical, that is why formations and maneuvres are still a must on aerial combat, that is why net-com is important, tracking cruiser missiles with IRST at long range is simply too hard…
If you have all your IR eyes pointing downwards you will always get a degraded performance , of course unless you are looking ground targets, the F-35 is more oriented to be an attack figther.
Russians know that, and won’t mix their IRST with FLIR, that is the reason why instead of software integration , they preffer to add a pod, same as the Rafale or Typhoon (also check their IR sensor placement)
I wont start the AS-42 debate -typical, no official data, relying on tales, and at the end an unsuccessful fielded device-…but sure the AS-42 is on the same group pf the AW-9 tales or the Yf-23 😉
its usually much lower than the brochure specs one finds in avionics magazines.
Actually often has been proved to be much higher
Sign In
