The US and Russia should really start working together on the IS problem because the outcome that is looking most likely at the moment is that Assad government falls and Western moderate rebel experiment continues to fail and IS is going to take all of Syria and leading to a bigger crisis then exists already.

Well what you describe here is actually the US plan: fall of the Assad government & take over by radical Islam. Israel & the US want a war in the region. Some years back I warned about Libya & Syria being next after Iraq, and every other retard laughed at me. I didn’t read it into a crystal ball, but Gen Wesley Clarke warned us all.

These air strikes that are being lead by the US which are the equivalent of throwing money down a sink hole. It been one year and what have they achieved against IS? Nothing. They still holding on to the territory they captured in Iraq and Syria.

Makes you wonder if they actually do bomb ISIS or if they are bombing someone else 😉

IS is not going to be defeated without boots on the ground the problem is no one is willing to commit.

Oh israel is very much willing to when the time is right.

I’m very glad Russia gets involved.

It will prevent Israel, the US & their puppets to bomb indiscriminately ISIS & the Syrian regime. You’ve got to be naive (scratch naive, dumb) to believe that they are only bombing ISIS.

Nic

Tango III there’s a typo it’s Su30SM not Su35SM

Those sukoi designations are complicated enough as is!

Nic

http://cdn.aviaforum.ru/images/2015/08/706322_a756d23570240f623dc52d168…

That pic is awesome!

Nic

Now why would one ‘fly’ the boat backwards?

I’d guess it be more stable with the weight facing forward?

Nic

Have you read the sentence where i said “Comparable” fighter.

Majority of the times when Soviet and Western fighters have come face to face Soviets have lost, even when Western fighters were without any additional support. Thats a simple fact.

Russians have improved but west have improved on a faster rate.

I hadn’t even bothered going that far into your post, but now that I have (twice), I stand by my reply.

Nic

Considering the total development cost, 4 million is probably just the accumulated cost of coffee.

Or whisky considering the result.

Nic

First of all way too much is being made of this test and some players are taking things seriously out of context to grind axes. So, what is of primary importance is to understand what the test objectives were. The FLTS’s out at Edwards don’t fly unless they have a clear objective to gather technical data, that’s what Developmental Test is all about. So, what were the objectives? From the report:

Please note that the object wasn’t to see how the F-35 stacked up to the Viper as a dogfight, rather it was to press the limits of the high AoA control laws and then report out the flying qualities in that regime, using various specified maneuvers. The Viper was there to make things dynamic and unscripted. Also, please note “elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs” are also preludes to departing an aircraft, so the evaluation of the effectiveness was how does the anti-spin logic effect high AoA BFM. Of course that’s exactly what the JPO statement said.

Next take a look at the setups:

All I have handy right now are the Block 50/52 performance charts, but they’re close enough to the 40 to show that the 3K, 6K and 9K setups are right at the sweet spots of the Viper’s performance.

[INDENT]Two 370’s Drag Index 70
22,000′ MSL 440 KCAS is 0.96M
20,000′ MSL 380 KCAS is 0.81M
Note assuming KCAS not KTAS since that’s what displays in the HUD and the EM chart below[/INDENT]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]238893[/ATTACH]

Puts things in perspective here. So, the Viper was flying right around it’s corner and max instantaneous, while the F-35 was supposed to go elevated AoA and see if the control laws would prevent the plane from departing when performing elevated AoA BFM. The Viper was at a clear advantage all along, but it wasn’t there to win, it was there as a visual reference to maneuver against. The whole point was to put the F-35 in a bad position and see what the control laws did. Which is exactly what the JPO said.

Turns out the early law are biased towards departure prevention(not a bad thing early in a program), not exactly an Earth shattering discovery, and that there’s plenty of margin available to improve performance, again not exactly Earth shattering. At least a sizable subset of these critics aren’t old enough to remember that the first wave of FBW A/C went through similar cycle or didn’t pay attention/forgot that Super Bug and Raptor did also.

Now with the critic’s original argument discredited they take something else out of context…Wash, lather, repeat, the cycle continues. They’re always certain their right but curiously avoid making a stand in the face of a rigorous technical argument.

:rolleyes:

One’s got to wonder what exactly they tested in the 10000+ flighthours up to 2013. And God forbid we ask what has been tested since then when the thing was not grounded.

It’s a lemon, period.

Nic