FBWyou saying the f-35A on internal fuel can match the range of the much larger su-30 on internal fuel
that’s some deep pizza sauce right thar
The most recent SAR report to Congress for the F-35 gave a combat radius of 625nmi on a USAF strike profile mission. The AtA range of 760nmi at a H-H-H mission profile is entirely believable.
FBWthanks for the pic but numbers do seem suspect
which f-35 is being used?
su-30mki with 3 external fuel tanks? it never flies with external fuel
same for f-35 for now.
It is an old Lockheed presentation from 2012. The numbers for the F-35A are somewhat accurate. Recent L-M releases give the range in AtA mission as 760nmi. The numbers for the MKI do not include external tanks if you read the excerpt.
I would be doubtful of some of those numbers.
Saab claims 810 n miles mission radius for Gripen NG in an a2a config.
The Gripen E/F range in AtA was given as 665nmi (with two external tanks) in Brazil competition. The numbers given by SAAB include: 1300 km with 30 minutes on station, 1500km combat radius in AtA mission, 2500km internal fuel ferry range, 4000km maximum ferry range.
The presentation from Lockheed above probably refers to the Gripen C.
FBWhttp://www.bbc.com/news/business-37575599
Long discussed follow on Typhoon order for Saudi Arabia appears to be making some progress. Saudi aircraft purchases have seriously ramped up, the paper strength of the RSAF is impressive ( 86 F-15C/D, 154 F-15 S/SA delivered+ordered, 72 Typhoon already on order/delivered, 80 Tornado IDS).
FBWNever noticed the wing fences on the Su-34 before.
There are pics of Su-34 without the wing fence. I wonder if they are fitted to reduce buffeting due to wingtip EW. Looks like earlier Su-34 were not fitted with the wing fence. Oddly not even all the ones that were deployed to Syria had the wing fences.
FBWFBW, you are unbelievable! Stop trying to defend the indefensible and stop trying to discredit an elected US senator just because he is telling the truth in this interview!
No offense, But I find the whole of the latest posts on this thread unbelievable and offensive to basic humanity. This is my last post on this topic as it has turned to unreality. People justifying vicious bombing with “well the U.S. did something like it” or the “U.S. is supporting terrorists”. Who exactly do you think Hezbollah is? Or the Quds force, or an army that is massacring the their own population? What is the point? That the U.S., Russia, et. al. can do terrible acts in war? Does that make it justifiable? Do you really believe only terrorists are being killed in this bombing campaign?
Sorry, no, the unbelievable is the justifications used to indiscriminately bomb an entire city as is happening right now. Nothing justifies the current actions in Aleppo, regardless if the US, UK, Roman Empire, Zulu nation, committed atrocities here or there, on and on. Does not make any of this less disgusting to defend.
BTW, Tony read a bit more. Richard Black is not a U.S. senator. He is a wack job who is in the Virginia state senate, read the rest of his views. Though judging by your posts, you may agree with those too, sadly enough. Feel free NOT to respond, I’d rather not hear from apologists of this, as I’m done with this topic on here as well.
FBWNice insight into the situation in Aleppo and US policy in Syria by senator from Virginia Richard Black. This is not what you usualy hear in the ‘free’ US mainstream media, right?
Please, there is a reason. “Dick” Black has been disavowed by members of his own party for his fantastical claims and views. He is a Evangelical Christian who’s views are premised on the return of Christians to the holy land. His praise for Assad is based purely on his religious beliefs.
It’s not in “mainstream media” because he is a fringe character with fringe beliefs that no sane person accepts here. But apparently, he is appealing on this highly politicized thread.
FBWWell, some people seem to argue that in a few years flying F-16 and F-15 will be extremely risky, and only the F-35 will do….
I think that really depends on what the mission of the said air force is. Singapore is not going to be engaging in expeditionary warfare over contested airspace. They have a sufficient capability to defend their airspace and shipping lanes against regional threats (provided said threat doesn’t destroy their air force on the ground, concentrated on three bases).
Flying F-15’s or -16’s into enemy airspace will become extremely risky without having assets that can kick down the door. The F-35 is planned to be that asset for the USAF and others. No one would argue that concept nullifies the value of legacy aircraft. On the contrary, it allows for legacy aircraft to continue as a potent force into the late 2030’s.
With the exception of the current European F-16MLU operators, no one is going to an “all F-35” force. The USAF is procuring such a large fleet due to recap issues. The U.S. F-16’s, Hornets, Harriers are at the end of their fatigue life. Doesn’t make much sense not to buy F-35’s to replace them. Those air forces with significant airframe life remaining in legacy platforms are buying F-35’s in smaller numbers to fulfill role stated above (Israel, Korea, Japan, Turkey[maybe]).
FBWOnce again, the flight manuals are always 100%. Data is very often estimated. Eagles have gone over M2.5 in practice.
No, they haven’t and flight manuals are not “estimated” at all. They are based on actual test flights on specific dates, which are noted on the pages. You are using manufacturer data, information off particular service pages which is often estimated and frequently incorrect. No F-15 could “in practice” achieve close to mach 2.5 without using the v-max augmentation which could damage the engines. Second, no armed F-15 could approach mach 2.5, making the stated top speed theoretical at best.
FBWRead more: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/singapore-eyes-f-35-for-2030-timeframe
Although their F-15/F-16 are advanced, to my knowledge they don’t have sensor fusion like e.g. Rafale (and Typhoon, although the Typhoons sensor fusion is found somewhat lacking). I also don’t think they got IRST(?) Thus the Singapore fighter jets lack some modern capabilities, but are still found to be acceptable until at least 2030.
Their F-15SG are new, and probably the most capable F-15E variant for air to air combat: APG-63(v)3 instead of the APG-70 or -82, the “Tiger eyes” derivative of the AN/AAS-42 IRST, and the ALQ-135M EW system.
They really don’t have the need for a new fighter until those F-16’s (which they recently signed a contract to upgrade), are nearing the end of their airframe life.
FBWThe decision not to include a framework for future purchases is incredibly shortsighted. We don’t know if it was due to French concessions, or India’s insistence. Bottom line, considering the glacial pace of the MoD procurement process, not including provisions was a mistake. 36 aircraft does not provide enough for 2 squadrons with training and attrition reserve. Disappointing.
FBWThe EF can’t do more than M2.0
I’ve seen others like you before.
It was claims that F135 had static thrust of 45.000Ib, cause it was mentioned in some magazine.
But at PW site it says 41000Ib of thrust.
.
What do nationalistic claims have to do with you posting the wrong information? Eyeball check, what does Pratt claim?
https://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_Kits/pdf/f135-specs-chart.pdf
You probably looked at the F135-pw-600, it produces 41,000lbs of thrust in the F-35B
FBWThey all state it as Captor-E is GaA, and radar 2 is the UK specific version.
Your own words on the previous page show that your lying. You state not once, but twice that radar 2 is not the same radar. I’m done with this as obviously you are going to stay true to form, and try to twist the debate.
FBWAgain, switching the arguements. Find one, one statement that radar 2 is not the UK specific Captor-E but an entirely different radar as you stated. Find one release, statement, mention of GaN based TRM post 2010 for the Typhoon AESA.. You can’t, your wrong, the rest is just a smokescreen.
Btw, don’t even pull that different versions crap. I stated that the radar 2 was the UK specific version of Captor-E. You stated it was an entirely different radar, several times.
FBWQuote Originally Posted by Starfish Prime View Post
It’s settled for good. Radar 2 is coming in 2021. It’s a well established fact that 1 and 1+ are GaAs and 2 is GaN. Show me a radar 3 if you believe otherwise.
Now a typical bait and switch happening on the TRM debate. Stick to the point at hand- which is your argument that radar 2 is a GaN TRM radar, and entirely different from Captor-E 1+
Your entire premise is based on a from a link in 2010, which vaguely mentions they may switch to GaN in the future..
Releases in 2014 showed that the consortium chose GaA. You insist that Radar 2 is an entirely different radar despite all releases stating that it is the UK specific Captor-E integration plan (granted the UK radar is to have some UK specific improvements).
Now I ask you:
First, which company is developing this entirely different radar? Next, where is it mentioned in the MoD budget? Lastly, why has nothing since 2010 said anything about GaN, or that the UK Radar 2 program is a different radar, yet all the links I posted state the opposite?
Here is the 2014 budget. The 72 million for the development of the Captor-E is listed: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396102/20150112-EP_Plan_Document-Final_OS_to_PDF_version-2-1.pdf
Here is a Leonardo contract to integrate a new E-scan IFF to be integrated with the Captor-E (one of the UK specific improvements was IFF upgrade). Hence it is integrated on Captor-E, not some entirely different radar as you postulate.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/07/13/Leonardo-to-study-Typhoon-friend-or-foe-capability-under-UK-program/2041468420660/
http://www.janes.com/article/62334/farnborough-2016-leonardo-finmeccanica-launches-iff-study-for-uk-typhoon
Here is BAE stating explicitly that the UK radar is Captor-E with UK specific improvements :
This will introduce the baseline production standard of the radar, known as Radar 1+, and it will be these P3E(B) aircraft that will be delivered to Kuwait, making the Middle East nation the first export customer to receive aircraft fitted with the e-scan radar.The partner nations also want additional sovereign capabilities for the radar. Britain’s Radar 2 development will feature more advanced AESA capabilities such as electronic attack. Future developments of the radar are expected to include greater cross-cueing of information from the aircraft’s passive sensors and improvements in radar autonomy and lessened pilot workload.
–http://aviationweek.com/shownews/bae-begins-e-scan-radar-test-flights
In other words, the case is closed, your wrong and as per usual: assert that you are right in spite of all evidence, and try to reshape the debate to appear correct.
FBWAgain, just remember WMDs in Iraq and how many nations, agencies and newspapers were reporting about them.. For me, this thing about Putin’s paid troll army remains a conspiracy theory, no better than those 9/11 truths or fake moon landings..
Typical response, articles and research collected from a myriad of different countries, different agencies. Interjecting the WMD claim (that news agencies and think tanks trashed at the time) to make a non-comparison. Yes, often conspiracy theories are debated in Parliaments of Australia, U.K. and the such with supporting documentation. Apologist to the core. Sorry, this is a shut and dry issue. “None so deaf as those that will not hear, none so blind as those that will not see”- maybe events close to home will open your eyes someday. I hope they will not for your sake.
Sign In
