Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

The "toy" comment is absurd too, sorry, I mean no offense but it had to be said.[/quote]

The word "toy" was probably the wrong word to use regarding the Shuttle.
The comparison I was trying to make was - The Shuttle only performed a small fraction of the work it was designed to do at great cost and had major upgrades at substantial cost. Simply it never achieved near the work load envisaged.
NASA must agree - they are going back to older Rocket technology as the more cost effective alternate.
I simply hope the F35 does not end up the same. I think if you read Krops articles thoroughly you will find this is his major concern. Don't take bits out of context. The F35 is supposed to last until 2040. He never knocks the Raptor. He simply says the money being spent on the F35 would be better spent on the Raptor. He is not saying the T50 will be better than the F35 in 4-5 years time but he is saying the T50 has the potential in say 10 years to be far better. It obviously is designed the traditional Russian way. First get a good airframe that allows continual development and upgrade as time goes by. Better engines - better everything. Very much like the Raptor. His main concern is the F35 is only a single engine aircraft with virtually no room for upgrade in the future. Its basic airframe limits future hardware upgrades as it is virtually at its limits right from the start. The only real upgrade potential it has is in software and systems and weapons. It is not like the F15 or the Raptor that had or have potential to be upgraded. Traditionally aircraft get heavier as the years go by.Upgrades.

F-16.net Sponsor

rkap wrote:

<snip>
His main concern is the F35 is only a single engine aircraft with virtually no room for upgrade in the future. Its basic airframe limits future hardware upgrades as it is virtually at its limits right from the start. The only real upgrade potential it has is in software and systems and weapons. It is not like the F15 or the Raptor that had or have potential to be upgraded. Traditionally aircraft get heavier as the years go by.Upgrades.

As I remember it, the F-16 was purposely built with almost zero spare room to prevent "goldplating" and driving the Viper from its original purpose. And yet, we seem to have added quite a bit of capability ...
fisk

rkap wrote:

the F35 is only a single engine aircraft with virtually no room for upgrade in the future. Its basic airframe limits future hardware upgrades as it is virtually at its limits right from the start. The only real upgrade potential it has is in software and systems and weapons. It is not like the F15 or the Raptor that had or have potential to be upgraded. Traditionally aircraft get heavier as the years go by.Upgrades.

There's all manner of upgrades planned for the F-35. DIRCM/NGJ/EA for self protection. Increased internall A2A load out. Improved thermal management. Improved NCW capabilities. Improved propulsion, etc....

[quote]
There's all manner of upgrades planned for the F-35

Limited upgrades - Yes. No argument.
It will require a complete redesign and rebuild to rectify its payload range supercruise ability etc. if necessary over the next 30 years. It can only be upgraded by refinement of systems and engine etc. It is obvious if the need arose in say 7 years to quickly bolt something else on its potential is limited. It has taken 30 years to do this with the F16.
Do you really think the F-35 way is better than the Raptor way of going about the design of a new aircraft.
The F-35 is completely different to the F-16 in the sense they designed the F16 from the start to do one job well from the start. There were no compromises made to fit broad specifications. It was not built to a USAF set of specifications demanding it do everything. Fill all roles. I could be wrong. It could prove a great success like the F16. The F16 is one of the great success stories over the last 30 years. Not much good to us in Australia though. Thats why we kept our F111's and bought Hornets. Even then the Super Hornet was what we needed. Krop is Australian you must remember and is talking our point of view.

rkap wrote:

Limited upgrades - Yes. No argument.

I'd say based upon the spiral development plan, that the upgrades are far more than "limited." Another thing to bear in mind, that even the Block 3 F-35s will be far more capable than Block 50/60 F-16s, not to mention Block 5/6/7 F-35s. As far as speed is concerned, max speed isn't the most important number. Acceleration and combat speed, are far more important metrics, and the F-35 has these in abundance(better than a clean F-16 Block 50).

I'm shocked that no one has restarted PAK-FA talk after the emergence of some good quality images on the web.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-- ... 1776617/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-- ... 3d06f69f5b

Looking at this, there seems to be almost no perceptible gap between trailing edge flabs and the elevators. And those weapons bays do look kinda big...

HaveVoid wrote:

I'm shocked that no one has restarted PAK-FA talk after the emergence of some good quality images on the web.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-- ... 1776617/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-- ... 3d06f69f5b

Looking at this, there seems to be almost no perceptible gap between trailing edge flabs and the elevators. And those weapons bays do look kinda big...

Pretty plane but what new, credible info is there? No sense rehasing a lot of speculation and hype IMO. Now, if there was something new and interesting that comes to light..

[quote="rkap"]

Quote:

There's all manner of upgrades planned for the F-35

Thats why we kept our F111's and bought Hornets. Even then the Super Hornet was what we needed. Krop is Australian you must remember and is talking our point of view.

Supers were what we needed???...for what?...$6bill for what...a trainer so the guys can get used to advanced avionics before the F35 comes along??...
Seeing the Vark never saw combat and never will (with Aust) why was there a great rush to replace them?.Do you think it would have cost $6bill to keep them up for another 8 or 10yrs?. Are you sure we couldn't have flown 24 or so legacy hornets up here to keep 1 & 6 busy? or is the 'war' in the south that bad...
Google who was in government at the time...Google who was in charge of Boeing Aust at the time...Look at the whole process, see who are mates, look how the boss of the RAAF made a statement to the media that no jets were required, then 2wks later said we need the supers...
While having a new 'ride' for the guys is great, that $6bill could have gone a long way, be it in the F35 stable or elsewere within defence.
Probably the best thing to come out of this scam is the Growler option..Haven't even heard NGJ and Australia mentioned in the same sentance...yet...

popcorn wrote:

Now, if there was something new and interesting that comes to light..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1776617/L/http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1775641/L/&sid=d7d858c8e0a580e4f68d623d06f69f5b

What are the little intakes on the roots of the vertical stabs for?

The more i watch this bird the more i think it will be far hevier than Raptor, and the orizontal tail plans are closer to the (supposed) CG than in the Raptor (which have completely external), check their position against the heavy engin's mass..
Anyway PakFa looks a pretty cool machine (probably faster than F-22).

munny wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Now, if there was something new and interesting that comes to light..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1776617/L/http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1775641/L/&sid=d7d858c8e0a580e4f68d623d06f69f5b

What are the little intakes on the roots of the vertical stabs for?

Interesting. And on closer inspection, I'm also curious if you/anyone is seeing any sort of apparent 'active aeroelastic' looking controlability in the vertical stab as well?? Hmm. Or is that a natural high-G bend, or maybe my untrained eyes are just thinking they're seeing something..

There are plenty of perceptional gaps for my taste. But, more interestingly, the images show something curious in the back end of the design. Given that the vertical tails can completely move (rotate), it seems a conflict of space is possible with the presumably all-movable stabilizers. Either one or the other has to be limited to avoid this. I hope this at least makes some sense.

munny wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Now, if there was something new and interesting that comes to light..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1776617/L/http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1775641/L/&sid=d7d858c8e0a580e4f68d623d06f69f5b

What are the little intakes on the roots of the vertical stabs for?

Some kind of cooling or power system maybe. Thats a guess though.

exorcet wrote:

munny wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Now, if there was something new and interesting that comes to light..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1776617/L/http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1775641/L/&sid=d7d858c8e0a580e4f68d623d06f69f5b

What are the little intakes on the roots of the vertical stabs for?

Some kind of cooling or power system maybe. Thats a guess though.

Probably for the Plasma generator, or rear facing DEW?

geogen wrote:

exorcet wrote:

Some kind of cooling or power system maybe. Thats a guess though.

Probably for the Plasma generator, or rear facing DEW?

Uh... it's probably a bit more generic than that.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Overstatement of PAK-FA capabilities?