FBWThe latest “leak” of results of an exercise made me think of the RoE of particular exercises and how they impact outcome:
mp-msg-045-19.pps
walton.pdf
going to have to cut and paste
FBWVN – Which contracts would those be? Not Korea, which I believe is the only real competition (not a beauty contest) where prices were on the table for both the F-35 and a European competitor.
Any grown-up knows how unreliable a comparison of two completely different deals can be.
And – good Lord, it’s good news when the F-35 defeats an airplane designed 63 years ago as a low-cost, carrier-based bomber? How well would it do against an equal-cost formation of A-4s?
As you well know, it has nothing to do with how the platform does against the A-4’s operated by a contractor aggressor firm. It has to do with how the platform shares information with other fighters. A key piece in the NATO air defense structure. The Dutch Pilot expanded on his comments, do you find it particularly surprising that he found the F-35 easier to fly than the F-16? Considering the absurd hand wringing over a flight test report vis a vis the F-16 which was blown out of proportion to what was being tested with the caveat that it WAS A TEST PILOT (which historically don’t give rave reviews of a particular aircrafts virtues, but point out flaws) it is not outlandish to think that this pilot has a positive view of his ride?
FBWSu-27 and Su-30MKI are, too, largely identical. But the Indian funding of the Su-30MKI has had little impact on the Flanker series as whole.
The numbers are being revised as we speak. No one knows the final result but they won’t reach the planned 2,443 figure, IMHO.
The total numbers for the F-35 is pretty much irrelevant. The ramp up production is. Dev costs are a sunk cost. Unit cost will greatly depend on yearly production. So far it is trending in the right direction. Overall, I agree that 2,443 number is fantasy, mainly because the F-35 production curve extends to 2036-38. There is no doubt that the USAF and ANY AF going forward is looking at smaller numbers. UCAV’S coupled with platform flexibility make a one for one replacement an impossibility. I’f be shocked if the USAF inducts more than 1,200 F-35’s. There is no need, no money, and no threat that requires 1,763 aircraft. Having said that, there is NO way that the USAF or the DoD is going to say this until the F-35 production gets off the ground.
FBW:rolleyes:
Yeah, let’s ignore manuals with data drawn from flight testing.
Sad part is with OPSEC rules clamping down on information available and the long service lives of modern fighters, there won’t be the leaks of flight manuals. Ill be old, gray, and retired by the time the likes of the Typhoon, Rafale, and Su-35 E-M charts hit the ole inter web.
FBWMost likely because the the photo taking aircraft is slower than the F-35’s and they therefore need more alpha to stay in formation with it while taking the photos. You’ll notice the same in many Typhoon photos.
Yup, good answer. Most unstable designs have a slight aft cg. The fighter needs to be trimmed to fly slow and level. The F-35, being relatively short, the trim is pronounced.
FBWIf you don’t know what “largely” mean then you need to brush up on your English.
Have they reduced their proposed buy?
Not sure why you would engage Msphere and his flanker love obsession. I’d let him wither on the vine now that his foil and equal lukos is gone.
The IAF purchase of the FGFA seems to be taking the route of the Rafale deal. Says nothing of the capability of the finished product (which will be a fine aircraft in 5-8 years). The procurement process of the MoD is, on the other hand in need of an overhaul.
Time, not Indian funding are key to the pak-fa project. The question is: what will the FGFA program for India include, and what offsets India will demand ? The Rafale deal gives a clue that negotiations will not be easy.
FBWLRS-B rumors NG the winner? Costs have been stable. That could mean that a considerable amount of work had been completed prior. It it could mean nothing considering the black veil over program.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/tell-congress-how-much-lrsb-will-cost-rep-speier-to-secaf-james/
FBWHadn’t seen this before, the French were onto something it looks like.
That is a L-M study of the F-35 drop tank separation computer modeling. Study was posted here by me a couple of years ago when the DT redesign issue came up. The originals did not have enough clearance with the fuselage to separate cleanly when released.
FBWNeedless to say all those Boeing flamboyant claims went into nothing and actually nothing concrete is showing off.
Those people are just desperate about being out of games…
??why do you say that? The RFI was only issued in 2012. The AoA period is ongoing. I would not expect anything to happen until after the UCLASS RFP clears.
FBWOmg..
You don’t see the sheer error in this?
An F-35 without a wingman, and has a defensive 9K position from a Flanker…
Even at a offensive 9K position(higher altitude)!Sorry to burst Your bubble, but the F-35 is totaly screwd without any wingman.
Seriously, you guys has not produced a singel sheed of evidence that the F-35 along With every other jet, regardless of nations, do BFM with a wingman at its selective defensive position. If there is four, then its a 2/2 and so on.
The core of BFM has not really changed sinse the WW2, which i believe a certain german pilot ACE/Instructor wrote the basics of it all.And the one example was about F-22 vs Legacy F-16/F15 With whatever suck@ss outdated system it ever had in Nelis..
What on Earth has this the do With a Su-35S With an Irbis-E system?Comeon People, this is pure BS!!
And further more, why the clever idea to put eight(or was it 10?) missiles on the Su-35S..
WHY?
So that the EM Charts of the Flanker would point suspectivly Close(or even worse) the the F-35?
So that the mission Range(time on AB) of the Su-35S would be reduced due to excessive drag?
So that the RCS of the Su-35S would be at the all time high?
So that the Su-35S would simply not outperform the F-35 on the supercruise arena.. which really boils Down to the F-35 have to use far more AB to even keep up, never mind overtake the Su-35S, to get in the Flanking/ambush position you guys are talking about.Pls do send(PM) “Gums”(retired viper pilot) over at F-16.net a few question about this.. 🙂
Infact he has said on several occations that most of the advs figure on both radar track and missile Pk range are far, FAR unrealistic, and this is pretty solid coming from a guy like him.
I’m talking about the difference in ADVS and REAL perforamance.I strongly suspect he is right.
The performance of newer systems has a higher specs yes, but the gap between Companies whom farts rainbow all over the horison and what is the realistic take is still very much the same. And that goes for everyone!
Silly, ask yourself why the tactics of having a wingman in close proximity evolved. Now ask yourself if the same tactical situations are relevant.
The answer is no, and in fact a close tactical spacing is detrimental. Is the wingman going to protect you from a bandit getting on your six and firing those pesky rear aspect only missiles.(sarcasm)
Combat spacing has been increasing. The current thought developed from ACTUAL exercises with F-22’s demonstrates that two aircraft can still share data, widen their search area, and support each other being several miles distant. The F-35 operating in flights of four ( will soon) be able to track each other, share tactical picture, and yes support each other separated by several miles. You don’t fight the current gen aircraft the same way as legacy fighters. You’ve probably read that several times. The tactics have evolved regardless of what the Luddites who quote Aim-7 Pk, Aim-9 D-H from Vietnam and “gun kill” advocates think. We are 43 years separated from the air war over Southeast Asia, 25 years from GWI. Put that in perspective. ( it would cover the first use of the airplane in war 1914-1957, things changed a bit in combat)
FBWWe can for the time being forget any jamming capability from F-35, no matter what the F-35 comunity claims.
I just explained a that in REALITY, the FOUR F-35 would stick together and not fly around on their own With out any wingman or Group to cover eachother.
The notion that you Place them miles apart is stupid as it is incorrect in airial warefare tactics.
While I don’t want to give this stupid sim the time of day, there are two points your wrong on:
The Apg-81 does have a jamming capability. Not a wide area, wide spectrum, force protection jamming like a Growler. But the APG-81 can jam radars, and has been demonstrated.
Second in REALITY, as has been stated by USAF personnel, a package of F-35’s will operate with far more distance between wingmen than legacy aircraft. That is one of the tactical aspects of the F-22/35 that differ from the F-15/16. The F-35 sensors and comms allow a wider separation between wingmen. And in fact, being in close proximity is a negative, not a positive for LO aircraft.
FBWFull Text Of The NSN(National Security Network) Report On the F 35
http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/08/F-35_FINAL.pdf
My favorite part: “we would like to thank…David Axe, Winslow Wheeler… Pierre spray, Bill Hartung.”
Well, they certainly had a brain trust of great minds peer review that report. They could have just saved everyone some time and titled the report “The F-35 is no good because these guys say so”.
But, their name “National Security Network” sound so official. It must all be true! Sarcasm off…
FBWAnd the notion that the MKI, a superb aerodynamic platform, with a much better radar set than currently on RAF Typhoons, can’t win in an exercise is exactly laughable.
Don’t really think either platform is so superior to the other. Typhoon is an exceptional energy fighter and that Captor radar is not exactly weak or outdated. We know that the Typhoon does not excel at the close in low and slow high alpha fights, an area where the MKI would dominate most any fighter.
Don’t think that the performance differences between any 4+ gen fighter is so great as to make it superior to another in all regimes. Pilot proficiency and exercise rules most likely dictate the outcome not airframe/avionics performance. Fight to the others strengths, you lose. But again, think that the media leak is not near the whole story, and not surprised the RAF has contradicted the reports.
FBWNo they most certaintly do not.
Performance Specifications (Sea level/standard day)
F110-GE-129
English
SI
Thrust class
29,000 lb
129 kN
Length
181.9 in
4.6 m
Airflow
270 lb/sec
122.4 kg/sec
Maximum diameter
46.5 in
1.2 m
Bypass ratio
0.76
0.76F100-229
SpecsThrust: 23,770–29,160 lbWeight: 3,740 lbLength: 191 inInlet Diameter: 34.8 inMaximum Diameter: 46.5 inBypass Ratio: 0.36Overall Pressure Ratio: 32 to 1 – See more at: http://www.pw.utc.com/F100_Engine#sthash.DaQDkFad.dpufBoth on the F-15E(SA)
There is none thrust increase.The F-15SA would have the IRIST among other system Integrated = weight increase.
The F-110 GE-129 has a bit more oomph on paper 29,400lbs thrust. They apparently also put out more power/more responsive at lower altitudes than the F-100. Makes sense for a striker to have the F-110 GE-129.
FBWDamn..12-0 for the Su-30MKI in WVR combat against the Typhoon! Vishnu Som is one of the few good defence journos in India, although he writes for NDTV
[url=http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-air-forces-top-guns-score-wins-in… top guns score wins in the UK]
Cope India anyone? Funny how the RAF never reveals any results from exercises, nor does the USAF. Speaks volumes, not in a good way about others. It is an exercise.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d29VsG35DQM
Practice….
Sign In
