Page 11 of 12

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 01:51
by neurotech
borntoholdout wrote:
neurotech wrote:FYI The F-14A/B/D had fixed intakes for most of its service life. This limited the speed to 2.0

The F-15 Can go at least Mach 1.2(Mach 2.0+ as I recall) with 4 missiles on conformal plyons. Remember the incident in Portland when the Oregon ANG alert jets went supersonic?


I think the F-15 is combat limited to 1.78m. I THINK. I've been wrong before. :thumb:

That sounds like the limit of the CFTs, I couldn't find confirmation of that figure, so I could be mistaken. A pilot would have some major explaining to do (at minimum) if they ran out of fuel in combat operations because they were flying too fast.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 02:31
by borntoholdout
From what can find on Google the 1.78m is for the "C" with 4 mraam's and 2 aim-9's. I'm posting from a smart phone and can't seem to post a link. What do you know? They'll even let stupid people have these. :shock:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 03:50
by Conan
SpudmanWP wrote:The APA has painted itself into a corner.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

Things are going to get real interesting when VMFA-121 shows up at its first Red Flag.


They are sort of, kind of, reluctantly coming around to admitting that Australia does in fact need something and the vapour-ware F-22A (as far as employing it in RAAF service is concerned) is no longer any chance.

There has been a bit of mumbling that "maybe" the F-15SE is what RAAF should be chasing now that it's preferred choices are unavailable or buried in the ground. Such has hardly been whole-heartedly supported even within their own ranks however and they haven't produced a single work supporting the idea.

It's more akin to the image of a disappointed enthusiast, kicking stones and dirt around aimlessly whilst staring downwards and mumbling that maybe the F-15SE would do...

The ironic thing is, that since they were publicly destroyed in front of the Senate Committee, the F-22A production finished and the F-111's were buried, they've produced almost nothing of note, short of official complaints, which shows just how much they "care about what's best" for Australia...

One of the principal tasks required of defence by Government is to provide options for the Government to fulfill our required national security tasks.

That APA has been wedded so wholly to it's dreams and demonstrably unable to intellectually identify any other possible options to meet our needs once their dreams were shown to be nothing more than hot air, demonstrates clearly just how amateur these men really are and how unsuitable they are for any sort of role in assessing, let alone meeting our tactical and strategic platform / capability requirements.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 04:19
by XanderCrews
Conan wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The APA has painted itself into a corner.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

Things are going to get real interesting when VMFA-121 shows up at its first Red Flag.


They are sort of, kind of, reluctantly coming around to admitting that Australia does in fact need something and the vapour-ware F-22A (as far as employing it in RAAF service is concerned) is no longer any chance.

There has been a bit of mumbling that "maybe" the F-15SE is what RAAF should be chasing now that it's preferred choices are unavailable or buried in the ground. Such has hardly been whole-heartedly supported even within their own ranks however and they haven't produced a single work supporting the idea.

It's more akin to the image of a disappointed enthusiast, kicking stones and dirt around aimlessly whilst staring downwards and mumbling that maybe the F-15SE would do...

The ironic thing is, that since they were publicly destroyed in front of the Senate Committee, the F-22A production finished and the F-111's were buried, they've produced almost nothing of note, short of official complaints, which shows just how much they "care about what's best" for Australia...

One of the principal tasks required of defence by Government is to provide options for the Government to fulfill our required national security tasks.

That APA has been wedded so wholly to it's dreams and demonstrably unable to intellectually identify any other possible options to meet our needs once their dreams were shown to be nothing more than hot air, demonstrates clearly just how amateur these men really are and how unsuitable they are for any sort of role in assessing, let alone meeting our tactical and strategic platform / capability requirements.


Damn, well put! APA can basically be summarized as "Anything but the F-35. whatever Russia/China has is better, unless its whatever aircraft we will never get but desperately want, based on these made up stats" If the F-15SE can fill that void for them, I expect them to ride it until the next best (imaginary) thing shows up.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 04:29
by Conan
XanderCrews wrote:Damn, well put! APA can basically be summarized as "Anything but the F-35. whatever Russia/China has is better, unless its whatever aircraft we will never get but desperately want, based on these made up stats" If the F-15SE can fill that void for them, I expect them to ride it until the next best (imaginary) thing shows up.


Yep, they are doing what they've accused virtually everyone else of. "Dooming themselves to irrelevancy..."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 04:53
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:Damn, well put! APA can basically be summarized as "Anything but the F-35. whatever Russia/China has is better, unless its whatever aircraft we will never get but desperately want, based on these made up stats" If the F-15SE can fill that void for them, I expect them to ride it until the next best (imaginary) thing shows up.

Considering there are "NATO" spec. MiG-29s now, I'm surprised they don't suggest the RAAF buy re-engined Su-30MKs with French/Israeli avionics.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 05:57
by borntoholdout
F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 06:02
by 1st503rdsgt
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 06:21
by neurotech
1st503rdsgt wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system :D

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.


Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 08:37
by gtx
I keep imagining Carlo Kook buried with his beloved F-111s under the rubbish dump...with Goon alongside him :lol: :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 08:40
by Conan
neurotech wrote:Considering there are "NATO" spec. MiG-29s now, I'm surprised they don't suggest the RAAF buy re-engined Su-30MKs with French/Israeli avionics.


One of the Senators who was clearly fed up with them, put that very point to them in front of the Senate. They didn't like that option because in their words, "it'd only give us parity..." Not the overmatch they say their option would.

Attempting reason or logic with that bunch is a waste of time...

/ignore

is the only effective approach with them and for the large part has been successfully implemented by RAAF and Government for years.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 08:50
by gtx
Was that the same session where CK was dragged kicking and screaming out of the Senate Enquiry?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 12:52
by spazsinbad
At least this other blogger addresses some of the points made in the original article sparking this thread - so in effect it is 'almost' on topic for this thread.

Air Force Magazine on the Latest From the F-35 Mavens Part 1 of How Ever Many it Takes 18 Nov 2012 by 'SMSgt Mac'

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -f-35.html

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 01:24
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system :D

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.


Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.


Why post stuff that "seems"..
When you can post stuff that "IS".

AL-31FM1 has service life of 2000 hour.
AL-31FM2 has service life of 3000 hour.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615

And the Flanker does not have F119 engines equivelent.
Its two totaly different engines.
It has this instead:

117S has service life of 4000 hour.

http://npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 02:52
by neurotech
haavarla wrote:
neurotech wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system :D

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.


Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.


Why post stuff that "seems"..
When you can post stuff that "IS".

AL-31FM1 has service life of 2000 hour.
AL-31FM2 has service life of 3000 hour.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615

And the Flanker does not have F119 engines equivelent.
Its two totaly different engines.
It has this instead:

117S has service life of 4000 hour.

http://npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

So 600 hours was a little low for total service life.. my bad..I still would be surprised if an AL-31 or AL-41(117S) can go more than 600 hours without an overhaul. Perhaps That_Engine_Guy will make an appearance, and confirm. I personally doubt the engine could get to 4000 hours without MAJOR rebuild during overhaul. Maybe they and make a Blisk fan/compressor stage like the F119, but until that is in FULL production and in service powering a jet fighter, its speculation as to reliability. Pratt & Whitney F119 engines have been in service for over 10 years. GE F414 engines, have been in service over 10 years as well.

The F119 is probably the most reliable engine ever flown in a jet fighter, and the F135 would be close, but hasn't really passed "oh s**t" test of a real in-flight emergency after a FOD incident.

How many Sukhoi pilots have ejected/crashed from a FOD/Bird Strike incident? More than the zero F-22 pilots?

Edit: Wikipedia page states a Saturn 117S engine has a TBO of 1000 hours. We shall see.