F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Nov 2008, 20:59

Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!

Really.... :roll:

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.

f-15eagle · by **f-15eagle** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:08

Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!!

Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!

Bullshit your just making that up because you can't make any good arguments. Especially when all air force and navy documents say the F-35 is better than current fighters. If I were you I would lay off the drugs.

Casey · by **Casey** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:35

SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
Really....

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.

Did I really mention Rand at all?

einstein · by **einstein** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:38

I´m a retired hydraulic type used to millisecond fast servovalve controls as in Gripen, F-16 etc
However, the conventional fast controls in X-32 were changed to Electro Hydrostatic Actuators in F-35, a package with an electric motor driven pump

My point is that efficiency for a motor is about 90%, for a pump also about 90%
Working together efficiency will be 0,9x0,9 = 0,81 i.e about 80%

20% of the considerable input effect will be heat, then comes further heat losses in hydr valves etc

Problem is this heat can´t be circulated to a fuel cooler as in a conventional central
hydraulic system and to me it means:

The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter
and respons at starting the motor will be slöwer than for a conventional servo valve

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:46

einstein wrote:The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter

Oh please, you betray your namesake by making such a statement while having absolutely NOTHING to back it up.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:54

Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
Really....

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.

Did I really mention Rand at all?

Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.

Why pick on one word? Why not answer the question?

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 07 Nov 2008, 22:16

Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!!

Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!

Would you care to elaborate??? Regardless, I doubt your sources are anyway associated directly with the JSF Program.

einstein · by **einstein** » 07 Nov 2008, 22:18

SpudmanWP wrote:
einstein wrote:The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter
Oh please, you betray your namesake by making such a statement while having absolutely NOTHING to back it up.

It´s just basic, you have a heat loss and have to cool it in some way
(36 years with aircraft hydraulics)

or take it easy, to avoid that heat loss

Casey · by **Casey** » 07 Nov 2008, 22:18

SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
Really....

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.

Did I really mention Rand at all?
Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.

Why pick on one word? Why not answer the question?

1. What question?
2. Do you have a history of attacking persons instead of debating the case?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Nov 2008, 22:58

Casey wrote:1. What question?

My implied, and other's, question is that you back up such an statement with CREDIBLE sources.

Casey wrote:2. Do you have a history of attacking persons instead of debating the case?

I think you have me confused with someone else. If you have read my posts, I take a lot of time searching the net for CREDIBLE sources for what I say and I provide those links for other to read.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Nov 2008, 23:25

SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Did I really mention Rand at all?
Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.

I hereby retract my retraction

It was a RAND study, weather you said it or not.

The study is downloadable here and there is an article from Flightglobal where RAND says the following:

Rand has disavowed the critical remarks about the F-35 as not intended for public release and, unlike the main presentation, not peer-reviewed. Additionally, Rand says: "Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from Rand were involved. Those reports are not accurate. Rand did not present any analysis at the wargame relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by Rand in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 08 Nov 2008, 01:05

rapier01 just posted a link to a great interview with the first pilot of the F-35..if you [wink]choose[/wink] to believe him.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 08 Nov 2008, 01:19

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 08 Nov 2008, 01:52

SpudmanWP wrote:rapier01 just posted a link to a great interview with the first pilot of the F-35..if you [wink]choose[/wink] to believe him.

Excellent read..............Great insight from a test pilot involved in both the F-22 and F-35 Programs. Just think of a Hi/Low Mix of Raptors and Lightnings! :wink:

LowObservable · by **LowObservable** » 08 Nov 2008, 02:38

einstein is right