Forum: General F-35 Forum

cola wrote:

@shingen,
nothing to spin in Japan.
Even Thumper understands that. Very Happy

This is entirely different matter and I had a very heated discussion with some "knowledgeable" ppl here about F35's accel., not that long ago.
Just wanted to stop and say hi. That's all...how does that qualify as a trolling, is beyond me.

shingen wrote:

In case you need a restatement F-35 won, Typhoon lost and the Japanese Air Force rated F-35 as superior in capability and costs.

So troll away on little details of the F-35's performance but the evidence is clear that the F-35 is a superior platform for real war missions at a lower price.

Evidence? What evidence?
Why would anyone care what Japan said?
How many flyoff hours they did on each type, to know?

"Why would anyone care what Japan said?"

I'll isolate that so as to point out your credibility.

The breathtaking arrogance of a few trolls who think because they've read a bit on aerodynamics they know better than defense professionals what systems should be procured.

Your record on the value of LO vs kinematics is well known and you're being called out for it.

You can make it about a few m/s^2 of F/m if you want so you can gloat over some of the more enthusiastic LM believers. The fact is you've posted volumes saying you think the Typhoon approach is better than the F-35 approach to producing an affordable quality platform and you've been dead wrong the whole time.

F-16.net Sponsor

shingen wrote:

The breathtaking arrogance of a few trolls who think because they've read a bit on aerodynamics they know better than defense professionals what systems should be procured.

Glad you think of me as breathtaking. Very Happy

Quote:

Your record on the value of LO vs kinematics is well known and you're being called out for it.

Didn't know I have a record here!
Can I see it, please? Very Happy

Quote:

You can make it about a few m/s^2 of F/m if you want so you can gloat over some of the more enthusiastic LM believers. The fact is you've posted volumes saying you think the Typhoon approach is better than the F-35 approach to producing an affordable quality platform and you've been dead wrong the whole time.

I didn't say EF's approach is better. I said I chose it anyday, over F35. There's the difference and that's my personal opinion.
What I usually comment on is of factual grounding, rarely personal opinions, such as that one.
The trouble is you can't differentiate one from another.

Anyway, we all read what ppl write and what happens in the world (Japan included), so I'm rally not interested in trumping with who said what and which authority is bigger.

If you have meaningful contribution to make, you're more than welcome to make it.

So there it is for all to see. Thanks for blowing your credibility out. You'd choose lower capability for more money.

cola wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

It says challenged by, not failing.

Spudman, "challenged" in this context means failed with a time clause, meaning failed at the moment, insinuating the situation may improve over time.
Does it really surprise you?

The F-35C is failing to make it's KPP for transonic acceleration. Get your fact straight troll read the DOT&E. Burbage said the KPP for all types was a challenge. He said nothing about missing it. But since you want to cherry pick troll ponder a couple more cherries.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.

Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.

shingen wrote:

So there it is for all to see. Thanks for blowing your credibility out...

My pleasure... Very Happy

Anyway, my credibility?!
(you can't be serious)
This is a forum, shingen.
Not a briefing room.

Still, the problem is when someone tries to make a comment, which goes beyond what has been written, he gets a detachment of fanbrigade doing barrage jamming.
That's very immature behavior and very annoying and tells all about the jammer's type.
When a normal person doesn't know something he either says what he thinks (with a disclaimer - IMO thingy), or he learns and then comments, or he just shuts up.
Other options (the one u choose f.e.) aren't really socially acceptable among grown ups.
If I wanted to discuss aesthetics and adolescent infatuation, I'd go over on beauty pageant board.
Warplanes on the other hand, are tools of killing and their looks is mainly conditioned by their role.

So, although your zeal is commendable, you don't fight any wars here shingen (except your imaginary ones) and if you feel so strongly about helping Uncle Sam, join the Army and make a real contribution.

(sry for the long reply, but I hope it finds it's way this time)

tacf-x wrote:

Wouldn't another issue of the canards be the flooding of the control surfaces and wings aft of it with huge amounts of turbulence and vortices which could cause buffeting and fluttering and the like? It just seems easier to work with chines for the purpose of delaying/replenishing separated flow over the tops of wings at high alpha's than working with sizing of the canards IMO.

Yeah. Check out page 8 on this brief on SAAB's "Generic fifth-gen design", Briefly mentions that issue.

[Link pending approval]

haavarla wrote:

You are mistaken here. Allthough KnAAPO produce Su-30MK2 without any carnards, IAPO do still produce Su-30MKI and right now VVS has ordered Su-30SM with Carnards.

Yes, as I said, they have some existing designs that have canards. My point is, their new designs do not.

Quote:

Regarding the Su-35S, it is an singel seater Flanker, with an improved FCS, same system as in the Pak-Fa. This made any Carnards and big Air-break redundant.

Exactly! Russia has found that the canards are not needed. (And have consequently abandoned them in favor of other technologies.) And you should research the reasons for it better. The canards were not originally put on the Flankers for maneuverability (though they did improve maneuverability). The canards were put on the Flankers because the Su-30's new radar was too heavy compared to the Su-27's original radar, and they had to move the center of lift forwards to compensate. Rather than redesign the entire plane, they put little winglets (canards) ahead of the main wings. Now they have found that actually fixing the nose weight problem through more use of composites and titanium is better than trying to kludge a solution around the problem.

Quote:

And the Levcon on Pak-Fa are there to stay. The 3rd prototype are almost 100% identical to the prior ones. Give me one good reason to remove em? They have different function as any Carnards

How many Su-3x prototypes were there that had canards? Several 35s, two 37s, and all the 30MKs they put into production for foreign customers in order to finance their own 35s. But how many canards are on the production Su-35? Zero. So I don't care what the 3rd prototype has. I was talking about the production PAK-FA, and neither you nor I have seen one of those yet, nor will we for several years.

There are several good reasons to remove the LEVCONs from the production PAK-FA:
1. The PAK-FA is supposed to be something of a stealth fighter. The LEVCONs aren't big enough to hold a deep-channel RAM under a false aerodynamic leading edge. Replacing them with a non-moving structure contiguous with the airframe could also allow the incorporation of more extensive frontal RAM to make it even stealthier yet (but it's unclear if the base RCS is low enough to even bother with little enhancements like that.) More importantly, that the LEVCONs move also inherently messes up the frontal geometry with respect to its angle to every other surface on the plane. In other words, getting rid of them would make the PAK-FA stealthier even if they do nothing but replace them with a non-moving LERX.
2. Every moving part has wear; every part that has wear requires maintenance; and every act of maintenance induces airframe downtime (and not necessarily exactly when you can best afford the downtime) and raises operating costs. Any part that can wear out also requires a supply of spare parts to be maintained above and beyond the ones that actually do need replacement, further increasing costs and raising the logistical footprint required to operate the plane. Get rid of the LEVCONs and the PAK-FA becomes cheaper to operate. It also becomes more reliable. (This reason sums up almost entirely why Russia abandoned canards on the Su-35 as soon as they were able to fix the nose weight problem that made them necessary in the first place. So by itself this is enough reason to get rid of the LEVCONs unless they are absolutely necessary to the PAK-FA's operation.)
3. Removing the LEVCONs means one less variable to troubleshoot in the journey from prototype to production aircraft. (And consequently many fewer lines of code in the flight control system to write and troubleshoot.) The PAK-FA is already very late (and this is no insult to Sukhoi; all 5th generation fighters have been late) but Russia doesn't have unlimited money to throw at the plane for an unlimited time. Moreover, the sooner they can get it operational the sooner they can start bringing in foreign money through sales of it. Removing things from it to get it ready for sales sooner could help its viability. This is especially true with its chief foreign customer, India. Although some in their military vociferously deny it now, India may buy the F-35 instead. The longer it takes to make the PAK-FA-derivative sales to India a done deal by by supplying India with their aircraft, the greater the chances that some or all sales to India will be replaced with F-35 sales.
4. The base PAK-FA is not a carrier-based naval fighter. LEVCONs are useful at high alpha and low speed, regimes useless in combat, though they are useful as a landing aid and in airshows. It's only the HAL-Tejas Naval LCA that has LEVCONs. They're not on the land-based HAL-Tejas LCA. (On this point I'll concede, they may well put the LEVCONs back if they build a naval PAK-FA for themselves or a foreign customer. Which is one reason to show them off on the prototypes even if they're not going to be on the production land-based fighter.)
5. Build cost. It takes more time and more parts to initially build each PAK-FA with LEVCONs than without. So they would be slightly cheaper to build without LEVCONs. (I do think this is a very marginal point; ongoing maintenance time and costs will outweigh this point many times over.)

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Does Not Match Predecessor's Acceleration Specs