FBWSeriously, Haavarla go post all this crap on the F-35 news and discussion thread, not here. No one wants to read the tripe you are posting when it’s obvious you have not followed the recent news, articles, posts, about why the F-15C is being retained and the PCA studies.
If you want to go on a half-a**ed F-35 diatribe, go over to the proper thread and expound upon why the F-35 is a failure in between the news about continued production orders and excellent reviews from the services. Please leave this thread clear of that crap. Better yet, go open a “Low Observable aircraft are overrated” thread where all the stupidity on this forum can converge in an orgy of Luddite views and theories quoting Pierre Spray and whatnot to your hearts content, because that is about the level of your posts here in this particular thread.
FBWNo problem, was not trolling. Was interested in seeing take-offs of loaded Mig-29K.
FBWWhen the planes in the video are launched the ship is moving.
Read the very last thing I wrote:
notice that the carrier is moving in the stock clip of the Mig-29K taking off from the ski-jump
Look at the second video when the Mig-29K is being loaded and positioned, is the ship moving? Please read the post before commenting or critiquing it.
Still what you say would imply that they have launched a Mig-29 from a launch pad, in front of several photographer and a commission of technicians send by Indian buyers to made it have an emergency stop once out of video camera f.o.v.
All of this just to enrag7iss off someone on keypublishing aviation forum?
How do you possibly draw these conclusions from what I wrote. The OP posted videos of the Mig-29K that he claimed showed the aircraft taking off with max loads he mentioned. I pointed out that is not what the video showed (specifically the second vid). I don’t doubt that the Mig-29K can take off with a significant load, nor that they haven’t. Even a S.Hornet could take off from a ski jump a full load provided sufficient WoD, based on simulations. Really couldn’t care less to start an argument over a non-issue.
FBWCute, some of the inaccuracies aside, the above does hit on one of the unique aspects of the F-35 program. It’s marketing and packaging is unique. Nations are buying shares of F-35 Inc. (Lockheed Martin, TM)
FBWBoth clips above have shown the max or nearly max take off weight of Mig-29K/KUB.
1. 5 tons load in buddy-buddy re-fuel role:
– 4 x 1,150L wing tanks: ~ 4.4 tons incl. fuel, empty tanks and pylons.
– Upaz-MK fueling pod: ~ 0.6 ton incl. pylon2. 5.8 tons load in anti-ship role:
– 2 x 1,150L wing tanks: ~ 2.2 tons incl. fuel, empty tanks & pylons.
– 1x 2,150L centre tank: ~ 1.9 tons incl. fuel, empty tank & pylon.
– 2 x Kh-35E missiles: ~ 1.4 tons incl. 2 missiles & 2 launch ejection rails.
– 2 x R-73 missiles: 0.3 ton incl. 2 missiles & 2 lanch rails.
While the max loadouts for the Mig-29K may be true, that is not what those youtube videos show:
1st video shows a -29 with two EFT starting takeoff run (oddly it switches to a clip of a clean Mig-29 on ski jump, around 2:37)
2nd video does not show the Mig-29 with anything like the anti-shipping loadout you are mentioning, taking off (other than crews loading those aircraft and positioning the Mig), again the clip breaks to stock footage of Mig-29 taking off with clean wings.
Not to mention there is no way in h*ll any aircraft (even on a cat-trap carrier) would be able to take off with that load on a stationary carrier (the carrier is anchored). The carrier aircraft need sufficient WoD to be launched with such a heavy load. (notice that the carrier is moving in the stock clip of the Mig-29K taking off from the ski-jump)
FBWShh.. don’t ruin the glittering fasade of the 5th gen fighter jets deployment. Nothing to see here, moving on!
I fail to understand your perference for dropping passive agressive non-sequiturs in this thread. Have you read any of the reasons stated for the USAF opting to keep and modernize the F-15C’s? This would not have happened if the F-22 program hadn’t been truncated by former DefSec. As it stands, the USAF has a requirement for at least 10 air superiority squadrons for each of the 10 AEF’s.
On a more seriously note, perhaps, this is a necessity that has emerged over the last eight years cause of the F-35 program, and there is simply no other choice.
Oh! And where are those foul comments on the A-10 delayed retirements.. they even blamed the A-10 extended deployment on F-35 program setbacks.
Now its F-15C/D/E turn i guess.
The F-15E was not slated for retirement until 2030 at the earliest even under former aviation plans. The F-15C modernization has nothing to do with the F-35. The F-35 was not slated to replace either the F-15E, or “C”. The USAF has identified a need for what they term as “magazine depth”, the F-15C is capable of filling that shortfall.
FBWThe thing that strains credulity is that both of you view aircraft EW/SEAD/LO methods as static since the 90’s and air defense systems having made quantum leap in capability.
Both have advanced, if not in lockstep, in increments. The aircraft (while the airframes may be the same): have received or are about to receive enhanced EW gear, EA capability, upgraded ARM missiles, new standoff munitions. The LO aircraft are 30 years newer in concept and electronics from the first generation F-117. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Btw Havaarla, I’ve no idea how old you are but the revisionist idea that the Iraqi air defense system was second rate in 1991 is a canard. It was designed by the French, included western and Soviet missiles and radar directed AAA, with hardened C3 facilities. Other than the Soviet AD system, it might have been the best integrated air defense system in the world at the time. The ease at which it was dismantled should give pause to the idea that a terrestrial anti access/air denial system can survive a concerted EW, cruise missile, SEAD/DEAD assault without a strong air based AWAC and DCA force to deny high altitude sanctuary to the attackers.
FBWI know that it’s availability has been officially certified as the lowest of all USA fighters even being the most recent one.
I know that they required 700 items and get 187 in the end, that’s is certainly always better that asking 32 and getting 3 but I would hardly call it a success the same.
I know that they have been designed as an offensive air superiority plane and ended up to be based in US territory only.You are however right, there is not anything wrong with it, all this happened despite USAF desires so not their fault at all, let’s blame that little obnoxious thing called reality instead.
Well sticking to reality, you would be wrong. In 2013 the mission readiness was 72% for the F-15C and 69% for the F-22 (and that is counting the F-22’s undergoing upgrades under RAMMP), recently it has dropped as the number undergoing RAMMP has increased. Contrary to some people’s beliefs a new fighter that has not reached system maturity generally has low mission capable rates. Those numbers rise as system maturity is reached, just as it has for the F-22.
Not sure why you are harping on the F-22 basing, the plan was CONUS basing for the F-22 since early 2000’s. If you haven’t noticed, that is part an overall trend for the USAF.
FBWA pity as at this point USAf would have both a Typhoon ecquivalent numbering close to thousand and the F-35 ready for production instead of 185 white elefants/hangar queens used operatively just one time and for a mere show of force.
Marellogo, do you know the availability rate of the F-22, or how it compares to the F-15, or Typhoon for that matter? The F-22’s is neither a white elephant or a hangar queen. You keep on expounding on the idea that the USAF cancelled the F-22 because of some percieved failing. Robert Gates moved to cancel the program with the backing of the administration. It was done in spite of force requirements and recommendations of the USAF. This has been explained to you by several posters on several occasions. Your hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny based upon the known aspects of the F-22 program.
FBWfirst, carrying more fuel, it has a better range (always useful for a strike aircraft), then, it’s been optimized for low transsonic drag with its wing planform, meaning, for the same T/W ratio it would accelerate better to go beyond the speed of sound, allowing also probably better supercruise ability
.
Most likely, it would have had better range. The rest is the exact opposite. That huge wing would have added massive drag (Thick wing throughout, t/c ratio poor compared to most every supersonic fighter I can think of), worst conformity to sears-haack possible (short, fat, massive wings) fineness poor, huge gaping inlet. After they redesigned the wing and tail, it likely would have improved somewhat. Not to mention, the redesign was partially due to the USAF revising the maneuverablity requirements (which the X-32 could not meet). Sure, the F-35 had some of those requirements relaxed later in the program, but one can imagine what would have happened as the F-32 gained weight, EOTS, etc, when it couldn’t even meet the requirements from the start.
Whereever the JSF program went off the rails in the early 2000’s, it wasn’t due to choice of X-35 over x-32.
@Mig-31BM
the rectangular nozzle of X-32 will reduce thrust compared to conventional round
This is often repeated but actually untrue (or too simplistic) if you look at the NASA studies on nozzle shape from the early 80’s done in preparation for the ATF. In static thrust, the rectangular nozzle was slightly less efficient (I believe within 3-5% of standard round nozzle). However, the rectangular nozzles of the F-22 were shown to actually have improved dry thrust, wet thrust was slighly lower. Moreover, the reduced drag of the rectangle nozzle more than offset the slight loss of efficiency, a net gain in Ps. Anyway the X-32 had a SERN nozzle (like the YF-23), simpler mechanically, less effient than the rectangular nozzles of the F-22 but even less drag.
FBWCould point out that obligatory is confusing one lesser function of DAS with the more important other two functions which have nothing to do with the resolution of the picture displayed in the HMD but this is too fun to watch play out.
FBWSo also the white dotted line would allow for a take off or it’s just for landing?
Visual reference for landing, bolters. Stobar doesn’t really allow for takeoffs/landings simultaneously (used sparingly on cat/trap carriers). Though Kuznetsov can definitely use one while landing operations are taking place ( other looks like tight clearance-blast deflector to angled runway).
Addition- not that take-off and landing operations aren’t going on at the same time, but generally are staggered to make sure deck crew and ready aircraft are safe.
Edit-a really interesting question is why the INS Vikramaditya doesn’t have JBD, as fitted to Kuznetsov and Liaoning.
FBWB-70 was not built and the SR-71 did not fly over Soviet Union. So where’s the disappointment in the Foxbat?
I believe he is referring to the inability for the Mig-25 to perform the mission for which it was designed. It would have been limited to a head on interception of those aircraft.
It also lacked the look down/shoot down capability to counter low level penetration. I think it’s fair to say the Mig-25 was a disappointment in regards to: combat radius, maneuver envelope, directional instability above Mach 2.5, weapon system. However, it was able to outrun or escape the firing envelope of the Aim-7 on multiple occasions, probably the most survivable of the export Migs from the 70’s-80’s.
But it was the progenitor of the Mig-31, so in that respect, it was a success, similar to how the F3H led to the F-4 phantom.
FBWExactly my point.
There was no end to what the F-35 should/could do back in the days.. which ended up today with what it can’t do.
^^
Exactly what can’t it do that it was touted to? Are we refering to a .6 sustained g, or 8 second accleration goal? Does this make the aircraft any less capable in it’s assigned tasks?
Does not make sense to include an aircraft that have just entered service to this coversation. Will the F-35 be a disappointment, or the iconic fighter of this generation? We won’t know for 20 years, there are better discussions that could be had here.
FBWLooks like UAE is still in full court press for the F-35:
http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/UAE:-Sheikh-Mohammad-Carter-F-15-and-F-35/5178
Paid subscription article so no go on full read.
Sign In
