SundogThe Mirage 4000.
SundogIt’s amazing how the nose wheel steering doesn’t move the rudders and none of the other flight control surfaces apparently move either. It must be a stealth plane that uses stealth controls! 😉
SundogThe article actually contradicts itself. First, it states that the UAE wants to develop a light combat fifth generation aircraft with UAC. However, further down in the article it states the aircraft would be a development of the MiG-29 (MiG-35?). It can’t be both.
SundogThe F-23 Stealth Fighter: A Super Weapon America Should Have Built (And Not the F-22 Raptor)?
A sympathetic read.
Source:
National Interest
Whoever wrote that is an idiot. The speed of the YF-23 PAV-2 with the YF-120’s is still classified and there are ways around the limiting speeds of “fixed” inlets using advanced aerodynamic controls (Like the porous bleed slots in the YF-23’s inlets) to control the shock wave in the inlet.
SundogUnfortunately, it’s difficult to make exact comparisons without knowing the loading condition, such as how much each aircraft has on board (ordnance in internal bays and fuel) at a given moment when a picture is taken, with regard to wing loading. However, I would expect the F-16 to have a lower alpha than the other two, especially at low speeds, due to it’s much higher aspect ratio wing (F-16 AR=3.59, F-22A AR=2.36, F-35A=2.66). The F-22 has a lower aspect ratio because it’s optimized for supercruise and the F-35A’s is limited by the F-35B requirements.
SundogExcept that it takes a clean F-16 get anywhere near a combat loaded F-35. A combat loaded F-35 spanks a combat loaded F-16 in every scenario even if by some miracle the F-16 get’s close enough for a WVR fight to occur. There is no contest.
Besides, the purpose of the massive internal fuel load of the F-35 is not range, but surviving to get to the target (ie keeping a VLO RCS).
The combat loaded, or any loaded configuration is irrelevant as it’s about the LO. As you stated, in a maneuvering fight, the F-35 loses. But it isn’t supposed to get into a maneuvering fight as it should have the first look, first shoot, first kill advantage. Although, I did find it interesting to find out that the F-16s wing mounted drop tanks are designed for M=1.6, although they rarely go supersonic with them.
SundogReagan didn’t have congress like Trump does. Trump and congress can cut spending when it comes to welfare or reform it. As of right now anyone can get some type of government handout even if you’re not disable.
Hyperbole much? Republicans always run up the deficit and crash the economy. Although, at least Reagan changed his policies some when he recognized he was crashing the economy (He gave the biggest tax cuts ever, up until that time, but then instituted big tax increases to fix it. But he did that by increasing taxes on the working class more than the wealthy. He stole from the poor and gave to the rich like Republicans always do). BTW, you can’t increase the defense budget if the economy is dead. As for government hand outs, it is time to stop tax cuts for the wealthy freeloaders who want everything and don’t want to pay for it; billionaires, corporations, and in both cases tax dodgers, you know, people like Donald Trump who has been freeloading for the last eighteen years while those of us who work for a living have to pay our taxes to cover them. As for the poor, I am my brothers keeper. It’s a moral choice.
Sundogthese are lies
China has NO problem in saying they can work with Russia to make a plane. (unlike say Russians)
L-15 is a perfect example where they received help from Yakobelbbut all these other examples are baseless.
the Lavi is a very small and underranged airplane. the J10 is so much bigger, they cannot be the same. It has a similar lay out, but do you say Eurofighter is a copy of Lavi?
Z-10 is Chinese. Kamov helicopters have two rotors and are large. not their style
Chinese flankers are legal that is why Russia doesn’t complain. Even if they are illegal, what can Russia do? they cannot stop it.
That was a nice non-sequitur you threw out there with the Typhoon. Why would anyone think the Typhoon is a Lavi rip-off? Unless you thought all canards are the same, but that would mean you don’t understand aircraft design very well. It’s also nice how you completely ignored that the J-10 is bigger than the Lavi due to powerplant choices and that it may be larger due to mission requirements. Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it was derived from the Lavi in much the same sense that the F-2 is derived from the F-16. The fact is, the facts aren’t on your side. I, personally, prefer facts over propaganda.
Also, you don’t know if the J-10 has a larger combat radius than the Lavi, as you would have to know what the specific ranges are for both designs under similar combat loads, and you definitely don’t know that.
SundogSaudi Arabia admits to having nukes, purchased from Pakistan. And they have put them atop medium range ballistic missiles purchased from China.
And Obama gave Tehran the green light to develop nukes, after a brief pause.
Please remove your tinfoil hat before posting. President Obama did not give Iran a green light to to develop nukes, as damn near every respectable nuke expert has clearly stated; That was the previous administration that did that by invading Iraq. But that’s what happens when people too stupid to know history affect it.
Sundog*and beta – see gapping outward facing intakes
I wouldn’t be so sure the outward intake is about beta as much as it it may be about a moderately swept shock for good pressure recovery at supersonic speeds.
SundogIt looks so perfect. I am amazed at the signs found on the LE/wingroots that seems identical to those of a Boeing 6th Gen concept.
What are those allegedly?
Notice also the large span and what could be depicted as a Prandt spanwise lift distribution for low drag, high lift and high alt combat simulation training.
The Marking on the wing root is the “P” logo of the Boeing Phantom Works.
SundogThe Mirage 2000. Don’t get me wrong, I think the single seat Mirage 2000 looks good. I just think the two seat Mirage 2000 looks better.
SundogCheck out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!
Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.
No, it wouldn’t. That has to do with the L/D ratio. It made it efficient at cruise. The design load of the XB-70 wasn’t much different from the SR-71’s and at those speeds, you don’t add a lot of load on the airframe. Maneuverability at MACH 3 is something of an oxymoron.
SundogIMO aviation was set back 20 years when the B-70 was cancelled. Kennedy cancelled it, but it was the fool McNamara that was behind the cancellation. The excuse given was Russian missiles would shoot it down. That was of course hog wash. Look how long the SR-71 flew and was never hit by a Russian missile or one from any other country. Besides that as cruise missiles were developed that the B-70 could have carried, it would still be a viable weapon platform yet today.
In addition with all the thousands of hours experience of supersonic flight, we would probably have fleets of supersonic passenger aircraft.
Technology wasn’t set back and, yes, missiles could shoot it down. It’s RADAR signature was huge compared to the SR-71’s, the first manned aircraft developed with the LO Tech. It’s support costs also would have been enormous as well. As history shows, we did just fine without it. The main reason we didn’t need the XB-70 was due to the excellent design and engineering put into the B-52. Also, when it comes to being a cruise missile carrier, the B-52 was a much better platform for that mission than the XB-70 ever would have been.
SundogWhat he (mkellytx) and the pilot in FBWs post explains F-35 is being tested for high AOA behaviour, ie controllability. Now;
a) Controllability has ZERO relation with performance. While our pilot says nothing about this, it doesn’t mean anything even if he did.
b) high AOA performance has ZERO relation with energy maneuverability. It, alone, doesn’t indicate ANYTHING about available turn performance either.So we have a caveman claiming to be a pilot, who says F-35 cannot do energy maneuverability, and that is based on maneuvers done in high AOA controllability test? Lets just dismiss it as yet another BS from another pilot quote and be done with it. To be honest, I doubt an actual pilot can be so ignorant.
All planes can do “energy maneuverability,” That’s just physics. What it is about is excess Ps and the F-35 doesn’t have it. Now, they may re-engine it with a new engine which would help, but I find it quite similar to the Supermarine Scimitar, in that it has a lot of thrust and may get more, but that doesn’t alleviate the fact that aerodynamically speaking it’s a pig.
At the end of the day, this plane was never meant to be a dogfighter, and the basic numbers bare that out. It was meant to be a stealthy light bomber with the ability to have a somewhat decent self defense capability. Unlike the F-15/F-16 relationship, where the F-16 can mostly match the F-15 in A2A performance, but performs mainly attack duties, the F-22 to F-35 relationship really was meant to be the F22 as the A2A component and the F-35 as the A2G component.
However, with all of the false advertising and pushing that the F-35 is really the panacea plane that can do it all, physics has once again intervened to reveal that it’s exactly what it was originally meant to be.
Sign In
