pfcemWhat exactly makes the abrahams the best for AU and our conditions…
The fact that 9+ times out of a 10 when Australia will utilize MBTs it will be along side US forces with Abrams.
pfcemNO it doesn’t mate, it is consistent with the rest of L-M’s docs; but typical is your habbit to write W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R…
33/40.000 ft. vs a 35.000 ft Ceiling for Harrier II…
You CONTINUE to show your ignorance & lack of comprehension.
Optimal Cruise
Maritime Patrol Mission
The range of altitudes during the
cruise is 33,200 ft to 40,000 ft.
Optimal Cruise, NOT operational ceiling.
pfcemOriginally Posted by Rogerout
USA is a democracy and as you said tha people did not approve the Iraq war because it turned out to not be as easily won.Originally Posted by pfcem
Utter nonsense. People OVERWHELMINGLY approved the Iraq war.THIS?
It helps to put comments into context (of course taking comments/data/whatever out of context & missing its meaning is nothing new for you)…Although you have to go ALL THE WAY BACK to post #8 to see where this nonsense started I included the comment MY COMMENT was a response to.
No mention of European (ESPECIALLY FRENCH &/OR GERMAN) public opinions. In fact it is QUITE CLEAR, when put into proper context, that the comments were in relation to US public opinions.
pfcemis VLO more beneficial for A2A roles or A2G?
I would imagine that it will always be beneficial for A2A,
while for A2G roles, perhaps on the first few days of wars useful for taking out radar installations and SAMs.. but once gone.. any aircraft with a bomb can do? :confused:
Please stop with the “stealth is only needed during the 1st day” BS.
It is nearly impossible to take out an entire defense network PERIOD, let alone do it in one day/night.
If you are foolish enough to think you only need stealth for the 1st day, you are going to lose a lot of aircraft on day 2, 3, 4, 5…until you realise that you were wrong.
pfcemAnd I bet that one of those niche roles is flying into heavily defended airspace on first day of war to take down the air defences.. (isn’t that the JSF’s niche role) and all without risking a pilot.
The JSF is the exact OPPOSITE of a niche role aircraft.
I’ve always felt that having a a stealthy plane just to be able to drop short range cheaper weapons was a very dumb idea..
So you you have an axe to grind against the F-117 do you. 😉
More expensive stand off weapons seem the better answer – but admittedly its not nearly so sexy as a black stealth jet.
What part or MORE EXPENSIVE stand off weapons are you having trouble with?
pfcemThat’s your trillion right there… easy…
Nope, not even half again as much as the base budget.
For example…
FY 2009 defense budget
$515 billion base
$651 billion including supplimental war spending
pfcemIt wasn’t what i said, i corrected some innacurate comment on European public opinions, dont forget at leat TWO gouvernements lost their leadership to this issue, Spain and Poland.
No inaccurate comment on European public opinions was made.
But you have shown yourself to be easily confused.
pfcemThat topic makes headache. Complete failure of the political leadership. Especially under Bush II. And people wonder why the U.S. defense budget is one trillion USD annually and why the economy is heading south. :rolleyes:
Half a trillion USD…
Actually $515 billion for FY2009 (out of a $3.11 TRILLION budget)
$481 billion for FY2008
$460 billion for FY2007
$439 billion for FY2006
$421 billion for FY2005
…not including supplimental war spending.
And the economy is heading south because of OVER INVOLVEMENT by the government.
pfcemThat’s exactly what I meant. You’ll still have the F-22 armed with SDBs or JDAMs when needed, and will still have long endurance UCAVs like the Reaper, so adding the JSF to a low intensity conflict is just pure overkill. Seriously, somebody point out a logical environment where the jet will serve a purpose that cannot be performed by another platform in the inventory or a far cheaper asset like a COIN/CAS type.
Don’t fall for the BS that the only wars that will ever be faught in the future will be low-intensity counter-insurgency in nature.
pfcemNOT US, not the Germans and NOT a LOT of European people BTW even Britain went to war with a majority of its folks against it.
And as it turned out, the reason why France & Germany did not approve is because they were (in viloation of MULTIPLE UN SANCTIONS) supplying arms & other santioned materials to Iraq…
I am also sure that you so conveniently ignor that the OEF coalition was in fact LARGER than the ODS coalition.
pfcemFRom DAY one it was a JOINT programme dude, USMN/RN/RAF. = Requiered specs.
Yep. The JOINT meaning for both the USAF & the USN.
The USMC/UK Harrier replacement program was only ONE OF THREE programs that accumulated into the JSF program. The OTHER TWO were a USAF F-16 replacement program & a USN F/A-18 replacement program…
I didn’t; YOU interpret the whole thing WRONG failing to take requierements and specs into account.
No, you are confusing PRE-JSF programs (while so conveniently ignoring others) with the JSF program…
As I said before, the nonsense you are prescribing is equivalent to saying that the EF Typhoon design specifications were based on a Jaguar.
USMC specialists wrote the specs FIRST, then USAF added their requierements later.
Not for the JSF…
Mig 25/31…
I had no idea the JSF was supposed to replace (or combat) the Mig-25/31….
Mirage III 50.000 ft, Mirage 2000 55.000 ft+ Rafale 55.000 ft+ F-22 50.000 ft etc.
F-35: 50,000 ft
F-22: 60,000+ ft 🙂
Let me guess, the whole mission profile as shown by L-M are KPPs too.
NO, like I said earlier, just a simple graphic illustration of A possible mission profile.
NO mate i replied to somone’s post.:D
When you replied YOU confused the XFV-12A with F-14.
SURE, i’m not the one making out replacing an aircraft in a role is desigining it for the SAME role it was originaly designed for, expecialy because LWF was designed for Air Superiority and USAF used them in the STRIKE role LATER.
Typical BS of people such as you making claims that people have said things that they did not in order to avoid what they HAVE said.
When did I EVER say that the JSF was designed to be a “LWF”? Air combat has come A LONG way since the early 70’s…
Sorry but LWF DOES NOT = air-superiority, that was the FX (which became the F-15). No way a LIGHT WEIGHT day/WVR only fighter = air-superiority.
You’re twisting your wires even further:
No, just a simple statement of fact that just like the concept of a KPP THRESHOLD & an aircraft being designed to replace another flys right over your head. 😀
Call it “Modified Diamond” if you wish, by virtue of its VORTEX LIFT the 42* swept F-22 wings are crancked delta with all the advantages they have at supersonic regime…
Add another one to the list of simple concepts you do not comprehend.
Now perhaps this is too complex for you to comprehend.
Not even close to exceeding my comprehension.
This is a tad clearer no? 9 g target MISSED (Structural LIMIT) with at least TWO versions out of three.
No, changing the design DURING THE DESIGN PHASE to meet requirements.
Note also that there is no mention of any Structural LIMIT…
If leading edge sweep angle had been the ONLY difference between the two then it would have had some sort of validity, as it is it becomes irrelevant, F-35 wing is FAR from being designed anywhere near as “like” that of F-22.
You go ahead & keep on living that dream. The FACT is that the F-35 shares more in design & construction with the F-22 than any other aircraft.
We’re talking about a 32*sweep angle at best, pure subsonic wing profile, NO TVC (YES they DO reduce the induced and trim DRAG in an instable, conventional arrangement) and which airframe is also OPTIMISED for lower ceiling and SUBSONIC (Frontal area/Inlets although the USAF version MIGHT inherit from different Inlets).
Firtst of all it is 35 degress & while OBVIOUSLY a 35 degree wing sweep is OPTIMIZED for subsonic cruising (has nothing to do with ceiling however) it DOES NOT prevent supersonic flight.
We’re talking about F-35 which elevator surface is by others standard HUGE and happens to be LIFTING surfaces too. = EXTRA DRAG (see above on TVC…)
Wow, “HUGE LIFTING surfaces”…must be meant to provide HUGE turning force.
Knew it you weren’t born yet, Ask John Boyd what the FX programme was all about.
:rolleyes:
Strike Eagle = Structuraly redesigned at up to 75%.
No, FX (F-15A). MCAIR was demonstrating its air-to-ground capability in the 1970s. WAY before the F-15E strike Eagle.
On a related note, the F-15E strike Eagle retains the full air-to-air capabilities of earlier F-15s. Just EXPANDS on the air-to-ground- capability that was already there…
Yeah hand grenades under my Genuine Chinese Kit would do to qualify for A2G capabilties too according to your standards..
I see that a simple bit of research is too much for you.
In the STRIKE role as it says on the box Joint STRIKE fighter.
No, in ALL ROLES.
Joint Strike Fighter. Sorry, you simply cannot ignore that it IS in fact a Strike Fighter & not ‘just’ a strike aircraft.
Answer this…If the F-35 is not replacing the F-16, F/A-18, et cetera in their fighter roles, what is?
DUDE, the WAY you try to apply them to designed LIMITS without comprehending what DESIGN LIMITS and OPTIMISATION implies, you are the one who visibly doesn’t comprehend the conceipt.
Nope, that would be you.
I will try one last time to explain this quite simple concept.
KPP (Key Performance Parameter) THRESHHOLD: MINIMUM accepable performance
The F-35 MUST meet or exceed a top speed of Mach 1.6 (in combat confuguration). Not ‘must not exceed’…As you can see from other combat aircraft, they quite often EXCEED their minimum & maximum requirements.
pfcemUSA is a democracy and as you said tha people did not approve the Iraq war because it turned out to not be as easily won.
Utter nonsense. People OVERWHELMINGLY approved the Iraq war. And for the most part those who disapproved either disapprove of war altogether (& thus disapprove of ALL wars) or their modivation was pure & simple partisan politics.
However, for a time, people DID disapprove of how the Iraq war was going & was being conducted. Then the administration finally got the message & ‘the surge’ (which SHOULD have happened in 2004) got things back on track.
Future presidents will take warning and refrain from wars that can become long and/or costly.
whatever
pfcemIs the Rafale Irrelevant?
No. If for no other reason than it is an example of France’s continued independence in aircraft design & manufacturing. The Rafale exists for two simple reasons, France would not accept ‘playing 2nd fiddle’ any other nation leading the Eurofighter program & while the majority of the other partner nations were not overly concerned with the export potential of the Eurofighter, the export of arms to other nations is a vital part of France’s military & economy.
I find it ironic however that while the Eurofighter (Typhoon) has had some export success, the Rafale has thus far had none. The closest it has come was 18 for Morocco before it decided to go for twice as many MUCH less expensive F-16 instead.
pfcemIs there a reason why people keep discussing Rafale and F-35 in a Typhoon thread ?
Yes there is.
I think there are own threads for those refreshing new arguements that run in such interesting circles.
Have you noticed how the Typhoon manages to make its way into them…
The point is that combat aircraft do not exist in a vacuum. Comparing one combat aircraft to others is natural & for potential customers vital to making the correct decision as to which to procure.
Regarding J-XX and PAK-FA: we have yet to see if those aircraft can compete with Typhoon. If they enter frontline service sometimes in the 2020’s.
So you should not worry about then until the 2020’s?
pfcemI’m SURE USAF are going to be please to know that…:D
It already does & did so long before anyone outside the program had even heard of “JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER“.
Thanks for PROVING yourself wrong.
It sure don’t exept when its operational ceiling is something like 20.000 ft below that of others…
What has an operational ceiling “something like” 70,000 ft…
Yes it DID boy, the prime architects of the programme and its requierementsd WERE USMCs highrankers.
LOL. AGAIN you forget that the F-35 design is based on the STVOL version, NOT the other way around so NO it doesn’t start there.
You obviously are living in some kind of dream or other such alternate universe.
Not my post mate i didn’t bring it up.
Post #243
That is YOU confusing the XFV-12A with F-14.
YES they were, please INFORM yourself.
You are the one who needs to inform yourself.
You should actualy try to READ the rest of the posts…
I did. The fact remains that changing the sweep angle from 48 degrees to 42 degrees does not prevent the F-22 from CRUISING without afterburner at >Mach 1.5 and actually IMPROVED performance in some areas of the flight regime.
Not a pound for Air-to-Ground…
That was a slogun for thre F-15. Which STILL was not strickly true as the F-15 did & does have an air-to-ground capability.
See airframes 71-1291 & 78-0527 as examples thereof…
I knew it you perhaps weren’t born yet, let’s remind YOU of some, F-35 is a STRIKE fighter primarily designed for the STRIKE role.
A strike FIGHTER designed to replace the F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, et cetera…
S.T.F.U. my dear sir, don’t mystake me for yourself will you?
I am not the one mistaken & I am not the one projecting my faults onto others…
And HERE the ol’ replacement story again… GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS….
I’ll pass; it’s a plague visibly.
Just like the simple concept of a KPP THRESHOLD, appearantly beyond your cognitive abilities.
Sign In
