France used USAF tanker assets in the Mali operation too.

[USER=”41059″]halloweene[/USER] – here is a case and point for why trying to judge things such as the F-35’s roll rate from an airshow is flawed, you can’t ascertain extent of control input by pilot. Same argument came up over the F-35/F-22 turn rates from a former poster trying to use air shows to time “max g turning rate using YouTube airshow videos” until I showed him the USAF airshow routine regulations that explicitly stated max g during airshow routines are limited to 7G except in an emergency (like exiting the airspace box). One reason I disdain those airshow analysis posts.

At around 5:20 you can see an F-35B executing a rapid bank. Still thinking “bank to 90*” is slow in the F-35? I think not.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FAv1hnPIbG8

Agree with Spud, US won’t finance Greek F-35 purchase outside of maybe allowing them to pay over time on favorable terms, and I doubt auntie Merkel will loosen the purse strings for a purchase of US combat aircraft.

One thing Im sure of is that there have been many more F-35s out there over the years that had emergency landings that were not reported. Any imperfection can result to a safe course of action which can be called emergency landing, specially during the first few years of entering service. I wouldn’t take this as a sign of why this one fell and other three did not.

very doubtful, there is a protocol for reporting emergencies and mishaps and it is not open to interpretation. Every single incident reported by a pilot is reported to authorities. It the issue requires emergency procedure, it would be reported.

Took a lot of hard lessons to come to that system.

. And the F-35 previously used firewire than later fiber optics along with Harris giving the F-35s newer processors that offer 25 times more computing power in which I now got a question as to what was the processing power of the old F-35s computer just to multiply that by 25 since I am having difficulty finding the source but I do know it exists somewhere. Thanks for the 6th gen mission system requirements.

Not entirely true, the F-35 uses fiber optics for missions systems communications, and notably EOTS connection. The 2GBit bus fiber channel is used for other connections at least in blocks 1-3. The F-35 is entering TR3 (3rd upgrade to ICP and associated hardware)And despite a lack of announcements or general awareness unless you dig into contracts, the F-22 has had significant and steady upgrades as well. Will dig them back up if interested.

Ok I see, but I don’t think this rule can be applied without further refinements. Russia has much more than the 0.375 of the former surface and resources of the Soviet Union, especially the high level technical ones. Also the shipyard capable for these vessels was lost. So it is not a linear function of population loss.

Got cut off-

This is a singularly facile comparison. Russian MIC didn’t degrade at a some percentile of landmass or mesurable rate compared to the USSR. Shipbuilding took a hit while the aerospace industry survived via exports. It isn’t capacity that matters so much as know how and subcontractors. Thousands of high level engineers left, retired, or moved on. your talking about an industry that needed rebuilding from near zero output. Look at the number of ships built from 1995 to about 2008, an entire generation of engineers, workers, was lost. The industrial base is being restored from a non-existence. There were supposed to be 12 project 22350 frigates by 2020, 8 yasen class SSGN, and two revamped project 1144 class ships by 2020. Nakhimov is a half a decade late if it meets the 2021 new deadline (no given). There are two yards capable of modular construction techniques; zveszda and zaliv. Both new to Russia, the others use slipways with low capacity cranes, beam restrictions, or basin capacity.

If there is one industry that reflects the problems Russia has faced rebuilding its previous military capacity, it is shipbuilding. Short term edicts and a command economy have little impact on projects that take a half a decade to complete. The loss of Ukrainian turbines set Russia back five years in their surface fleet, and nuclear subs can only be turned out at a rate equal to the availability of yards and specialized technicians. Percent of land area and resources don’t reflect capacity.
Doesn’t help when leadership is pushing unattainable goals like revamping project 971 ships beyond their projected service lives, and slow modernization of shipyards.

not that western navies aren’t facing a similar cliff, it’s just exasperated in Russia due to 15 years of relative inaction.

[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER] – take that cartoon down. That is incredibly racist and has no place on an aviation forum (or anywhere else).

This would be the second time in 8-9 years I ever wanted to report a post.

I said plainly that the X-2 (formerly ATD-X) was a “Demonstrator”. That Japan would join with a Partner or Partners to jointly develop a future 6th Generation Fighter. This means it won’t be an “F-3”. Which, never “EXISTED” as I’ve also pointed out.

Your post is visible to all, you equated the ATD-X with the F-3 program and thought that the two were synonymous. They aren’t and if you had read what I wrote and the links I provided, you would have known that.

Instead of moving on, you doubled down with prognostications that don’t reflect the reality of what Japan wants from a future fighter project, namely a Japanese led effort (with a co-developer) with significant work for Japanese aerospace industrial base. Guessing on whether or not this comes to pass is immaterial, I was posting the current status of the F-3 program as it stands today.

edited the rest- It was my fault for responding to you in the first place, your M.O. is well established.