-If you don’t read the news, you are not informed
-If you do read the news, you are misinformed
ANY NEWS

As a force of old habit, I peruse every news agency that has an English language version. The scary thing, to me, is the proliferation of alternative news sources that are neither sourced (outside of rumor, tweets, and innuendo), nor news.

News media is (and always has been) flawed and prone to bias. For all the faults of the traditional news media, there is no doubt that checks, stringent standards for sourcing, peer review provide some controls not present in the world of alt. news. The scariest trend (to me personally/professionally) is the polarization of news media and decline of impartial investigative journalism. People choose to get their information from sources amicable to their worldview, and shape their opinions in the comfortable bubble of confirmation bias.

The discussion of world media and rise of alt. news is particularly relevant to the conflict in Syria. It has shaped the words used to describe the sides fighting, the principals involved (both overt and covert), and the geopolitical impact.

The P-8 has extended raked tips, which perform the same functions as winglets: increase the effective span and create one or two vortices to prevent spanwise migration.

The raked tips have the advantage of lower weight and lower bending moments in turbulent air, which is significant at low-level, at a cost of increased ground area which apparently is less significant to the US Navy.

Yeah the span extentions have the same function, with same drawbacks of flutter. KC-46 lacks either, C-17 has winglets yet they were never retrofitted to the C-5 fleet. It would seem to be a no brainer with the KC-46 reducing tip vortex for the aircraft flying behind, unless there are drawbacks not readily apparent.

Edit- apparently Boeing claimed the winglets would add cost to their bid that wasn’t worth the fuel savings.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/kc-46a-lacks-winglets-touted-boeing-during-kc-x-competition

Another topic that has been beaten to death. The research on the F-22 nozzles has been posted by me as least 2 times. Use google asymmetrical nozzle, and read for once. There is no reason to assume that the Pak-Fa is built to the same requirements as either of the US aircraft, different requirements, different operational doctrine. Btw, the conventional “internet wisdom” that thrust is reduced is b.s. too

Emh, not.
Ejection seat saves life but they often provoke vertebral compression fractures, it is not invalidating but need therapy.

A problem exacerbated by HMS/HMD. Even though they weigh a few pounds more, that translates to a lot of pressure on the neck in an ejection.

in case you missed it, the germans had far more advanced designs in late WWII, but, with the reduced numbers they could put in the air, they simply couldn’t handle the quantity of allied fighters that roamed their sky…

Both TR1 and Tomcat hit major issues for Luftwaffe:
1. Lack of fuel for training, regular sorties by mid to late ’44
2. Lack of effective pilot training for replacement aircrews. USAAF pilots had, by and large, a year of flight training in flight school, transition training, squadron indoctrination prior to combat. Luftwaffe had a mix of a dwindling supply of highly experienced pilots and raw recruits.

Operations were hampered by this far more that a lack of machines, or quality machines. The FW-190 was a match for most allied aircraft with the exception of high altitude performance.

Quality and quantity are important. Droves of low quality aircraft and aircrews cannot compete with a competent air force. The USSR learned this early on in WWII. No modern nation would want to send masses of pilots to their death to overwhelm a more technologically sophisticated enemy. Morals of unnecessary losses aside, it takes too long to develop a pilot and it’s too expensive to maintain a large, poorly trained, unsophisticated air force.

[QUOTE=Sintra;2362237]Couldnt this topic be merged with the “normal” F

Please don’t merge! This is a beaten dead horse.

The Gripen E/F isn’t supercruising anywhere with a CAP range approaching: the F-35, Rafale, or Typhoon. Those 450 gallon tanks that give it the “outstanding range” being harped upon preclude that. It is amusing that those who have such distain for L-M advertising claims swallow the Gripen “pixie dust” wholeheartedly in spite of considerable evidence it is just that- marketing claims. The Gripen E/F is a fantastic light fighter, it’s merits as an affordable, upgradable alternative to the other entries should stand alone. What is irritating is the wholesale ignorance of the parties trying to “sell” the Gripen E/F as what it is not, an analog to a heavier, higher capability fighter that can: carry a credible warload and do so with sufficient range, speed, and maneuverability in one mission. Brazil and Switzerland proved that is not the case. For both, the affordability and maintainability were winners. That is should be enough to make the Gripen a winner on the international markets.

If you can track a missile you can track a fighter.

It is a MAWS sensor for SPECTRA, where exactly is the tracking of the aircraft tied into ID, and targeting. See the issue here?