Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Nowadays anything can hit Mach 2 through sheer power (except a Hornet) Heh, F-35 is going to join the lonely Hornet soon. Unless all those released specs are bullcrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 3 competing Eurocanards (Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen). No, that's two competing Eurocanards (Typhoon and Gripen). The subject of the conversation was the Rafale and it cannot compete with itself! Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Whoops, got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Heh, F-35 is going to join the lonely Hornet soon. Unless all those released specs are bullcrap. Heh I suspect that the F-35 is speed limited not by the amount of thrust but maybe by temperature, or maybe doctrinal restrictions. It has more than twice the thrust of the hornet, afterall. Otoh the US and LM are desperately trying to get more orders for the F-35 worldwide so I see no reason for them to downplay the capabilities of the aircraft. I just watched Battle of the X Planes yesterday (a great 2 hrs!) and I am well convinced that the X-35 was the better plane that won the competition. Between the Rafale and the Typhoon, I think the Rafale has the advantage (and disadvantage) of being more mature-- it's systems are fully integrated, it has full A2A and A2G capability, but probably less growth potential. The Typhoon, on the other hand, is still missing half of its projected capabilities, though it will get them eventually if the money (and demand) is there. (Note that for Singapore's NGF competition, the last two finalists were the F-15 and the Rafale, even though the Typhoon excelled at A2A combat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm probably the only person who prefers the look of the X-32 over the X-35. It's ugly yes, but looks menacing IMO, like a shark. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Yeah, I do think you're the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drifand Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Actually, I kinda liked the X-32 as well... mainly because it DIDN'T look like a 'cheap' F-22 rip-off. The gaping jaw config reminded me of the old A7 Corsair... just 'stealth-ified' for today's need. No doubt, it would've been a harder sell to overseas partners because of it looks if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiroikaze Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) @Retracting Head Ter Ter: I nearly fell for that... Nearly! I'm probably the only person who prefers the look of the X-32 over the X-35. It's ugly yes, but looks menacing IMO, like a shark. Graham Menacing... like a mother protecting its young. Edited April 1, 2009 by shiroikaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles316 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Perhaps India might buy the Rafale? Provided they get that carrier finished by the Russians... I would guess sales of Rafale was hurt by having 2 competing delta canard fighters and the availability of cheap F-16s. But fighter have to be specially configured to fly off a Russian type Carrier since they don't use a catapult. They Need over clocked engines, and stronger main landing gears. The Russians are not going to give any advise to France so they could compete against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Shark? I think of this instead..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 No doubt, it would've been a harder sell to overseas partners And the US Navy! "F-32 Sailor-Sucker II" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 It looks more like a guppy or a goldfish to me! Anyway, I thought that Boeing/MDD should have learnt the lesson from the ATF Competition and realised that new and exotic design=FAIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Anyway, I thought that Boeing/MDD should have learnt the lesson from the ATF Competition and realised that new and exotic design=FAIL. Well, the P-38, SR-71 and F-111/14 and B-2 did indicate otherwise. But c'mon, comparing that bullfrog head grafted to a guppy body lump to the beautific YF-23 ain't fair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Well, the P-38, SR-71 and F-111/14 and B-2 did indicate otherwise. But c'mon, comparing that bullfrog head grafted to a guppy body lump to the beautific YF-23 ain't fair! Yea, but the SR-71 and B-2 and F-111 were not designed as air superiority fighters, and the F-14 wasn't exotic by the time it came out and it was for the Navy anyway. The P-38 can be the exception that proves the rule Actually the X-32 impresses the engineer in me for it's pure engineering elegance, but it obviously doesn't win points in the looks department-- not to mention that the proposed production fighter would have lost the Pelikan tail and the pure delta wing. Maybe the rule should be-- Pelikan tail = FAIL for manned fighters Edited April 1, 2009 by edwin3060 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 This should have been bloody obvious to me, but that "Hotelicopter" thing I posted a link to was an early April Fools. Grr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Menacing... like a mother protecting its young. I've been looking for that pic for a week now, thanks. Well, the P-38, SR-71 and F-111/14 and B-2 did indicate otherwise. Yea, but the SR-71 and B-2 and F-111 were not designed as air superiority fighters, and the F-14 wasn't exotic by the time it came out and it was for the Navy anyway. The P-38 can be the exception that proves the rule Actually the X-32 impresses the engineer in me for it's pure engineering elegance, but it obviously doesn't win points in the looks department-- not to mention that the proposed production fighter would have lost the Pelikan tail and the pure delta wing. Maybe the rule should be-- Pelikan tail = FAIL for manned fighters the rule is that exotic+Boeing=fail; now Lockheed can pull of exotic. anyways, I dislike both JSF designs, but I actually think the production version of the X-32 would have looked cool (better than the F-35 anyways). the conventional tails, and the intake slanted back rather tan forward helps a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I actually like the Pelikan tail of the X-32--- if you are going for the weird look, might as well go all the way! Look how well the YF-23 pulled that off---even though it lost the competition, it won the hearts of many aviation enthusiasts, including SK, who was inspired to create the YF-21! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 And the US Navy! "F-32 Sailor-Sucker II" I don't think it would be the 2nd one. A-6 Intruder EA-6B Prowler F-8 Crusader A-7 Corsair II I think it would be "F-32 Super Sailor Sucker V" Funny thing to consider is that I don't really recall F-14's having a rep for sucking in Flight Deck crewmen. A bit surprising considering how big the intakes and engines are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I figure the angle helps the Tomcat--you can't walk RIGHT in front of the intake---the lip forces you a bit away. Every foot makes a difference. Anyways---the "new" Su-35 seems to have eliminated its dorsal airbrake in favor of a digital one--check the rudder deflection: http://www.sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpape...35/_SPS1828.jpg Strange there's no other deflection though---I don't think rudders alone would equal the dorsal brake. The Shornet and Raptor have 2 movable surfaces on each wing, and can thus balance each other out--the Flanker only has one per wing, so that may be an issue. And just a really cool belly pic of it: http://www.sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpape...35/_SPS1805.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) Strange there's no other deflection though---I don't think rudders alone would equal the dorsal brake. The Shornet and Raptor have 2 movable surfaces on each wing, and can thus balance each other out--the Flanker only has one per wing, so that may be an issue. Who needs airbrakes when you can pull a "Cobra" instead? Maybe Crazy Ivan can even do it gears down! Edited April 6, 2009 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Airbrakes are definitely more useful than the cobra maneuver IMO. Not only during combat, but during landing as well! Otoh, the flaperons and horizontal stabilisers can be used on landing. Hmm.. I wonder what they put in place of the airbrake... more fuel? Avionics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I'd guess fuel---practically a Russian tradition to put fuel in enlarged spines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Would they be able to get a lot of extra range out of the fuel they can put in that airbrake space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) I hope 187 (-1 that crashed recently) Raptors are enough Among the major changes Gates is proposing in the Defense Department's 2010 budget are ending production of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22 Raptor at 187 jets, effectively shutting the door on the Air Force's desire for more of the advanced jets. Mr. Gates said funding for another Lockheed program, the F-35 Lightning, or Joint Strike Fighter, will be increased in 2010 to $11.2 billion, which will now buy 30 jets, up from 14. funny the airforce is getting more c-17s they dont want c-17s, they want raptors. Edited April 6, 2009 by buddhafabio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 They don't want C-17s, but they do need more C-17s to replace the C-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Would they be able to get a lot of extra range out of the fuel they can put in that airbrake space? No, but every bit helps. Even a 20 mile increase in combat radius is considered "worth mentioning/doing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bri Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 From the news: the Dutch government is going to sign an agreement before the end of april for the purchase of two test F-35s and when that happens it will be certain that 85 F-35s will replace the remaining F-16AM. Till recently Saabs Grippen had a chance, but the airforce and the ministry of defence strongly opposed the Swedish plane. There is strong public opposition to the plans and parlement is investigating misinformation charges about costs but its very likely that the purchase will continue. Wonder if it will turn into the Starfighter II instead of Lightning II... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 It's disappointing but not surprising to hear they're halting Raptor production. Seems there laying most of their cards down on the F-35 for future Air Force operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Boo... although it is true that the C-17s are arguably more important to the air force now than F-22s, it is still sad to think that the production line will be shut down so soon (and after so little use). Gates is also pushing for having only 10 CVBGs instead of 11-- looks like both American air and naval air power will be degraded. On a brighter note, what does the acceleration of the F-35 programme do for the F-35C? Any chance that we will see it sooner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Train Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I'm inclined to agree with some of Gate's proposed cut-back, or at least until the government reduces the red on the bottom line or start producing surpluses again. In a campaign, say in Afghanistan/Pakistan border, an extra F-22 will do nothing. The focus is on intelligence, special operations (where an un-maned drone will come in more handy than an omg5thgenfighter), and of course diplomacy. As for deterring China or a resurgent Russia, that's not really a factor. The Raptor is still the only 5th gen in service, whereas the Russian & Chinese response to the raptor are still a few years away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I hope 187 (-1 that crashed recently) Raptors are enough funny the airforce is getting more c-17s they dont want c-17s, they want raptors. The USAF may not like C-17's, but the military needs them if they want to maintain their hold on MAC. Their airlift capability is aging badly, just like their air tanker assets. But these aspects of aviation aren't as glorious and sexy as fighters, so these have been on the backburner since at least the 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) I'd almost say this would be a time to let up on the ban to sell the F-22, to allies like Israel and Japan. I can understand the need to meet defense demands in regions of current conflict like Afghanistan. The F-22 is simply not needed in such regions. I do however hope that production is resumed in the future when the finances are there. It's still a shame that more people will lose their jobs if the production line is cut. So the Air Force is replacing the C-5 with the C-17. I take it they intend to keep the 130 in service still for years to come? I hope that is the case atleast. Edited April 7, 2009 by Shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 BTW, what are the NATO reporting names for the J-10 and JF-17? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 BTW, what are the NATO reporting names for the J-10 and JF-17? Ripped off design 1 and Ripped off design 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bri Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 BTW, what are the NATO reporting names for the J-10 and JF-17? NATO/ASIC(used to be ASCC) names are in principal classified except ones that get leaked. The names for the J-10 and JF-17 are not in any list I know of. Don't think they are publically know yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts