what’s funny is that all that generations stuff was done several times, and every person defining them seems to have his own idea… some stated:

1st gen:

WWI fighters, basically, they start the thing

2nd gen:

Closed cockpit, heavyier fixed armament, last prop fighters (WWI, basically)

3rd gen:

jet fighters, still mg/canon armed plus eventually rear quarter IR missiles… basically, it’s still about dogfight, but with performance way over the previous ones (me262, f-86, P-80, mig 15)

4th gen:

generalised supersonic performance, electronics are used pretty much, radar, BVR missile-armed fighters (fighters like the F-4 and, basically, everything made after 1960)

5th gen:

stealthy, very integrated avionics, datalink, etc…

that’s more or less what I’ve read as “generations definition” until now. one can always argue about this or that point, but it gives a general idea

was just wondering this afternoon how this threat managed to get to over 30 pages with 20 page limit 😀

as for DoD paper.. don’t worry, pfcem will be here soona round to tell you taht these amateurs at DoD have no clue and the program is going on just fine and even ahead of schedule… :rolleyes:

In your EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid induced hallucinations. The way tankers operate vs commerial arliners, the fuel burn difference is likely to be HIGHER.

Should the US government pay Boeing the diffierence when it is higher?

lol, they should add that to the contract.. no risk for US budget there…

as for “higher difference”, tankers are usually used for extending other aircraft’s range, which means they don’t just go up, and start descending 5-10 minutes later.. chances are they have an even lesser consumption difference than airlines, especially when air-refueling (tanker to tanker) gets taken into account.

but I guess that, as usual, you won’t bother about facts and will just discard what doesn’t fit into your fantasyland

@ Loke

one thing you should know, actually, with pfcem, even if the schedule is revised ten times for 3 years, and then late 6 months from the latest schedule (meaning, thrity and a half years late), he’ll say “naaah, it’s not late, it’s just a 6 month delay”

I just oevrflew his mile-long post, saw a couple of nonsense thingies he posted and hopped to the next one… he posts the same thing time after time, and even if the people in the program say something he doesn’t like, he’ll claim he knows better 😀

Try looking at the picture in its actual resolution instead of the resized version displayed by your browser.

1) Go to http://jetphotos.net, plenty of pictures of F3 Rafale (C112 for example).
2) You’re the one claiming there is a panel fit issue. How about you provide pictures with underlined examples of the problem.

you don’t understand the way it works here… jackjack asks for links, but never admits anything from those he’s given, and, what’s more, put nonsense statements without ever even trying to give the slightest hint of the beginning of idea of possibility of proof to his statements…

Someone noted how Marines are so gonna find an alternative. So I assume they’d find a parking lot or a construction yard or a football field if they needed a spot to land their planes.

the problem is you can’t always choose where you operate. while modifying assault ships’ decks can be envisioned (costly, heavy, but possible) depending on where they have to go “near the front”, things may be a bit more difficult (or even downright unmanageable, in the worst case scenario)

considering the report of the navy, chances are that during the tests, the F-35B has to perform a certain amount of vertical take offs (and eventually landings) from the same point (possibly a copy of ship’s deck, and maybe a couple of other “less prepared” surfaces) to analyze the impact on the surface and proove its “performance” one way or the other

Always glad to read your objective, unbiased opinions.:D

well, considering the amount of money boeing pretends to save the USAF, and the fact it’s pure BS (the engines in use are known and their hourly consumption as well), if the USAF put in the contract that boeing has to deliver or pay the difference, it wouldn’t take long to bankrupt them…

of course, boeing would never sign such contract in the first place… i simply found it would be funny for the USAf to ask them to stand behind their statement… 😀

Did anybody believe that it a commercialy viable option to have a factory building soley A330F after the tankers were built? I don´t. And I am sure building them on the exisiting line would be cheaper as well.

actually, the factory would be commercially viable for EADS for the tankers alone (we’re talking about a $35 billion contract, it’s not “just a few airframes”)… and, the airframes besides the tankers would be a “plus”, for EADS (built in “dollar zone”, their price would be more stable on international market than coming from “euro zone”) as for the US economy (more airframes produced bringing more work).. while boeings proposal is for tankers alone, since it proposes an airframe that is from an aircraft nobody buys anymore (767) – the boeing factory would build the tankers and that’s all…