FBW1] no, the area is infinite in X coordinate, it can be launched in pakistan or china and you couldnt tell the difference,
the space based system will otoh create a perfectly round diameter
Spend 10 minutes looking up published research on geolocation before posting comments that display your ignorance. Everyone would be better off.
FBWThat is what the F-35 worshippers want us to believe. That fusing multiple sensors is some kind of magic pixie dust tech no one else has. In reality, it’s just combining output of the sensors via common logic and making them cooperate and enhance each other’s data flow without pilot’s direct input. What exactly is there so mega advanced is beyond me, today you got $1,500 household appliances doing the same via a common cloud.. :confused:
Actually no and yes, data fusion v. Sensor fusion. You have (example of the Gripen E/F system architecture that I posted previously- hint look at databus transfer rate) data collected by the sensor like the radar, processed by the radar’s back end, fused with EW/IDAS data via cockpit MFD. The F-35 for example, has system architecture capable of transferring raw data (though processing also happens at sensor CPU) like video to the ICP. The ICP has AI functionality, such as cross referencing known emissions/NCTR via Radar, AN/ASQ-239, DAS, EOTS with the mission data files, ID’ing targets with estimated degree of confidence. That information is fused at the ICP, tactically relevant picture is presented to the pilot via MFD and HMD. The processing power behind the F-35’s fusion engine is impressive. Certainly not a “so what everyone has fusion”.
FBWAgree to disagree then.
I think the reason that Gates gave is the BS answer and the expense of the aircraft is the truth. You think the exact opposite.
You can think that Bigfoot (Yeti, whatever) is real and lives in your treehouse, it does not make it accurate. As Sintra stated, as Spud stated, you can look up as a matter of public record in the SAR reports, your opinion is wrong and the facts are as I listed.
FBWer, nobody says that, actually.. the only thing related to raptor is “use the few parts that you can, as their development is already paid for..” and that’s about it
Please…… His entire premise is wrong from the start. The F-22 may have issues with software upgrades, premature fatigue stress on tails, and inlet ramp damage, but people seem to forget that early blocks weren’t even supposed to be serving as combat coded aircraft in 2017. The commonly repeated myth that F-22 production was discontinued due to: “design faults”, “too expensive” are repeated on this forum often without any supporting documentation or reports. The last proposed production block had a procurement cost below 150 million in TY$.
Those comments just don’t correspond with the actual reasons stated by Gates, JCS, or Congress. The F-22 was cut, quite simply because Gates prioritized weapons that could be used in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the President sustained him. Gates stated that 187 F-22’s would suffice to meet any threat then foreseen (and history has shown his foresight to be flawed).
FBWF-35A’s being deployed to the Pacific (on top of the European deployment) in 2017. With a “B” squadron being deployed to Japan, and two upcoming deployments for the F-35A, it would appear that the services are quite confident in the capabilities and stability 2b/3i. USAF confidence in deploying the F-35A with 3i overseas, seems to belie the negative perception associated with warfighting capability and stability of the current configuration being reported.
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/air-force-f-35s-first-foreign-deployment-to-pacific-not-europe/
FBWAnd you do not fire that gun in any Urban area if you are considering avoiding collateral damage, so pls stop that ****ty US P-ganda that US being so much better.
There are 1000’s of unreported US airstrike tha last few years.. i wonder why.
Before you pop off on this as if there is no truth to the disparity of civilian deaths caused by bombing in Syria let’s look at the information from observers. In reality, both the U.S. (and coalition) and Russia lie about the extent of civilian casualties caused by the bombing in Syria.
The difference is in the magnitude of the lie. And anyone who thinks that Russia (using unguided munitions in an urban setting) is somehow not killing more civilians is delusional.
The last link is particularly good (observer states that both Russian and coalition are causing casualties, and contrasts the different campaigns)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/10/usa-must-come-clean-about-civilian-deaths-caused-by-coalition-air-strikes-in-syria/
https://airwars.org/civilian-casualty-claims/
http://www.rferl.org/a/syria-russia-us-monitor-compares-bombing-campaigns/28059034.html
The Russians don’t give a **** about collateral damage, bunch of a$$holes
– Is that really helpful (or appropriate) to have a open discussion on a forum about CAS Hotshot? Do you think that Coalition airstrikes are not killing people too?
And before this thread devolves into claims and counterclaims of civilian deaths, perhaps it’s best to stick to the topic?
FBWWhat is the best color?
Red
Green
Blue
Purple
Orange
I pick Green because there are so many shades, and lime colored cars can be bought at the lowest price………. But Red is obviously been upgraded recently with the addition of such shades as “lust” “oxblood”.
-Sarcasm off-
FBWConsidering it’s planned service life will approach 50 years, 3,500 hours doesn’t even seem plausible on the face of it (100 hours of flight per year would equate to zero airframe hours left as of now). The BM modernization does include fuselage disassembly (and likely fatigue checks and repairs) in order to get to 20 more years of service, but it’s not like the moderization is replacing wing spars, ribs, longerons and the like. Obviously, due to the low altitude supersonic requirement, the Mig-31 has a strong airframe.
FBWor maybe (just maybe) the huge funds spent for the F-35 were on behalf of the legacy fleet that couldn’t be properly supported/renewed anymore, especially while they were used extensively for years
Two separate areas in budget O&M and Procurement. O&M requirements has increased due to aging airframes, at the same time sequestration has bitten in. Your suggesting they take funds from procurement to bolster O&M? Probably a very poor long term decision. When the mechanic tells you that your Renault has a leak in the head gasket and the transmission is going, is it a sound decision to sink several thousand Euro into repairs or buy a new car?
FBWThe USAF is considering cutting the RQ-4 block 30, the block 40 Global Hawks aren’t.
FBWTR-1, that was not the point I was making. I agree with you on Depot level mantenance and the Soviet method of replacing parts at regular intervals over repair. That is exactly what I’m saying.
No, not all Soviet weapons were designed for a short service life: Tu-95, SSN (SSBN), Mig-31 come to mind. The T-64 is a case in point (that you brought up). It was a complex weapon system that had a higher maintenance and servicing requirement than the average conscript could provide.
I’d be happy to have this discussion (and support with documentation) but don’t want to derail thread threshing this out further. But in short, there is a difference between people who claim Soviet weapons were low tech garbage (they weren’t), and what I’m saying about the how the Soviet logistics and maintence system, their belief on survival/repair of front line weapons in a high intensity conflict, impacted design/engineering choices.
FBWHe was making a sweeping statement about “Soviet” engineering philosophy. And as we can see with AK’s , Soyuz ect, he’s wrong
Not engineering philosophy overall, weapon engineering.
And your wrong. Your trying to apply modern Russian defense policy and manufacturing with Soviet times (likely due to some fearful inferiority complex, as it is a running theme in your posts). But I’m not going into this for another derailment of a thread to correct your misguided notions.
FBWAnd the hits keep on coming from the Navy (two CVW could be shuttered, two reduced to “hard deck” min)
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/09/budget-woes-may-force-navy-shutter-two-carrier-air-wings/
Last month there was full court press for 355 ships. Reality- budget realities are leading to deferred maintenance on existing ships, unfunded 30 year plan, Colombia class budget squeeze, reduced F-35C buy (likely to be reduced further), and the strike fighter shortage exacerbated by maintenance backlog.
Adm. Richardson needs to get his house in order.
FBWThat’s a figure quote by lotsa sources… In return, I have never seen your 0.70 number..
http://www.456fis.org/PRATT_&_WHITNEY_F100_ENGINE.htm
https://defence.pk/threads/pratt-f100-pw-229-eep-engine-to-power-moroccan-air-force-f-16s.66664/
http://www.airpowerworld.info/aircraft-engine-manufacturers/pratt-and-whitney-f100.htm
http://www.mepcsa.com/ROADMAP/F100-PW-229EEP.aspx
http://all-aero.com/index.php/component/content/article/64-engines-power/13430-pratt-whitney-f100-jtf22-f401
?
After digging, I can tell you where RAND gets their numbers. Here from a different doc:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a282467.pdf
SOURCES. Ogg, 1987, pp. 37, 39; U.S. Air Force, Aeronautical
Systems Division Deputy for Propulsion, 1986.
– that is where they got the SFC for the F100-220 and F110-100 for that document, and the numbers are the same on the doc I posted earlier. RAND is getting their information from the USAF. The figures floating around the internet for SFC like this site:
http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html
are ballpark accuracy based on open source. The RAND numbers are more accurate.
FBWPolish F-16s use F100-PW-229 – this type has SFC of 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) at military thrust and 1.94 lb/(lbf·h) at full afterburner.
F100-229 (SFC .70), not sure where you got the other number. I’m going with RAND as they likely got the numbers directly from the directly from the manufacturers.
What fuel do the Poles use in their Mig’s, can the RD-33 not run on JP series fuel?
Polish AF have said that the MiG-29 was cheaper on the fuel cost/hour than the F-16C
And for the Poles that may be, but I don’t see it due to fuel (as even if Russian aviation fuel is cheaper, your talking about 5,000 lbs more fuel in mil thrust).
Secondly, one operator’s figures do not equate to a whole service history. CPFH are calculated differently by different services. Malaysian experience with the Mig-29 has suggested it is the opposite of cheap to operate, India as well.
Sign In
