F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

[Zebra]

just one ..............one pod can carry 6 SDM & 2 AAM .................for other configuration see the previously posted Photo .......
Good luck toting that big pod around at 9G....

Weapons pods won't increase signature and drag.

Been built to carry up to 2,500-pounds of weapons.

If I am not wrong, F/A-18 can carry three of them.

And if you are not happy with F/A-18, then think of F-15.

F-15 can also carry all the weapons that F/A-18 carry.

@ AmoghaVarsha

 

[charlie]

Weapons pods won't increase signature and drag.

Been built to carry up to 2,500-pounds of weapons.

If I am not wrong, F/A-18 can carry three of them.

And if you are not happy with F/A-18, then think of F-15.

F-15 can also carry all the weapons that F/A-18 carry.

@ AmoghaVarsha

even a small antenna creates a drag.

 

[airtel]

And if you are not happy with F/A-18, then think of F-15.

F-15 can also carry all the weapons that F/A-18 carry.

@ AmoghaVarsha

yes weapon bays of F15 are better ............. I think Sukhoi 30 mki should be Upgraded like this >>

 

[BON PLAN]

yes weapon bays of F15 are better ............. I think Sukhoi 30 mki should be Upgraded like this >>

Don't imagine these conformal pods don't have induced drag .... they have !

And what about the non conformal pod.... see the bottom : a max drag effect.

 

[airtel]

Don't imagine these conformal pods don't have induced drag .... they have !

And what about the non conformal pod.... see the bottom : a max drag effect.

these Pods can be removed , these are good for first few days of war .................after the destruction of enemy radars & Air -defence systems , we can use Fighter jets Normally .

 

[airtel]

US Navy Grounds All F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets & EA-18G Growlers Following Incident

http://www.rafael.co.il
A U. S. Navy E/A-18G Growler jet assigned to Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 132 experienced an on-deck emergency at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island at approximately 1100 (PST), December 16th. The aircraft was damaged and both aircrew sustained injuries and were transported by a NAS Whidbey Island SAR helicopter to Harborview Medical Center for evaluation. The cause of the emergency is under investigation.

An EA-18G Growler aboard an aircraft carrier. File picture: US Navy

Naval Air Forces has temporarily suspended flight operations for all F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers as a safety precaution since they share common aircraft systems, with exceptions made on a case-by-case basis dependent upon operational requirements. The operational pause will allow both Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and Boeing engineers time to investigate the incident.

According to Navy Times quoting a US Navy spokeswoman "The ground emergency involved the jet's canopy, and an investigation is underway to determine the cause of the incident"

An EA-18G Growler from the "Shadowhawks" of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 141 is stopped by an arresting gear wire after landing aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73)
File picture: US Navy

About the Growler
The Boeing EA-18G Growler is carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft, a specialized version of the two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet. The EA-18G replaced the Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowlers in service with the United States Navy.

The EA-18G integrates advanced airborne electronic attack capabilities, developed and manufactured by Northrop Grumman, with the advanced strike capabilities, including advanced weapons, sensors and communications systems, installed on the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft.

The block 2 Growler is equipped with the APG-79 multi-mode radar with passive detection mode and active radar suppression, ALQ-218(V)2 digital radar warning receiver and ALE-47 countermeasures dispenser.

Boeing delivered the 100th EA-18G Growler aircraft in May 2014. The RAAF ordered 12 of such aircraft in June 2014.


http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...rnets-ea-18g-growlers-following-incident.html

 

[StealthFlanker]

An internal bay, specially for air to ground weapons, bigger than AtoA missile) need a bigger airframe, with a higher drag ALL LIFE long ! (even during training or conveyor travel).
It's why the F35 (also known as Fat 35) is so slow (no super cruiser as promised just a few years earlier) and poorly agile (dominated by a old F16 with external tanks).
.

Quite hilarious how you sneakily try to push those agenda despite being schooled so many time and didnt have a single word back
Fact 1: the test with F-16 was a high AoA test , to test the FBW not to see which aircraft is better in dogfight. The F-16 was used as a references point for F-35 high AoA control law

Once the pilot get used to the aircraft and the FCS was fixed , it is a completely different story
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Fact 2 : It actually very common for a more modern aircraft to lose to a legacy fighter in dogfight, the reason being that pilot skill also play very important role here
For example : F-22 has lost to T-38 ( basically an F-5)
http://jalopnik.com/5221219/f22-raptor-gets-fragged-by-t-38-training-jet

Rafale has lost to F-4E

Fact 3 : aircraft top speed is decided mostly by intake ability to recover pressure so just because an aircraft has slower top speed than another, doesnot mean it will be slower at all altitude. For example: top speed of Mig-25 is Mach 2.8 , top speed of F-16 with CFT is Mach 1.9. Base on that simple information , most people would think that it would be very simple for Mig-25 to out run F-16 at any altitude. They couldn't be more wrong. At low and medium altitude, an F-16 block 50+ in clean or in A2A configuration (with CFT in both case ) will be able to out accelerate and out run Mig-25 all day everyday. At sea level , Mig-25 will be struggled to reach Mach 0.8 but the F-16 can go over Mach 1.2. At altitude of 5km ( about 16k feet) , Mig-25 will just cross over Mach 1.2 while F-16 can go near Mach 1.5 . At altitude of 10 km ( or about 32k feet ) Mig-25 will top out at about Mach 1.7 , but an F-16 with CFT and 2 AAM can still reach Mach 1.8. When they start to go higher , the variable intake of Mig-25 along its turbojet engine will give it higher excess thrust than F-16 => higher speed.

 

[BON PLAN]

these Pods can be removed , these are good for first few days of war .................after the destruction of enemy radars & Air -defence systems , we can use Fighter jets Normally .

Absolutely.
I think it's a better solution than to produce a pure stealth aircraft, whose wider body create more drag all day long, even without load !

 

[BON PLAN]

Quite hilarious how you sneakily try to push those agenda despite being schooled so many time and didnt have a single word back
Fact 1: the test with F-16 was a high AoA test , to test the FBW not to see which aircraft is better in dogfight. The F-16 was used as a references point for F-35 high AoA control law

Once the pilot get used to the aircraft and the FCS was fixed , it is a completely different story
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Fact 2 : It actually very common for a more modern aircraft to lose to a legacy fighter in dogfight, the reason being that pilot skill also play very important role here
For example : F-22 has lost to T-38 ( basically an F-5)
http://jalopnik.com/5221219/f22-raptor-gets-fragged-by-t-38-training-jet

Rafale has lost to F-4E

Fact 3 : aircraft top speed is decided mostly by intake ability to recover pressure so just because an aircraft has slower top speed than another, doesnot mean it will be slower at all altitude. For example: top speed of Mig-25 is Mach 2.8 , top speed of F-16 with CFT is Mach 1.9. Base on that simple information , most people would think that it would be very simple for Mig-25 to out run F-16 at any altitude. They couldn't be more wrong. At low and medium altitude, an F-16 block 50+ in clean or in A2A configuration (with CFT in both case ) will be able to out accelerate and out run Mig-25 all day everyday. At sea level , Mig-25 will be struggled to reach Mach 0.8 but the F-16 can go over Mach 1.2. At altitude of 5km ( about 16k feet) , Mig-25 will just cross over Mach 1.2 while F-16 can go near Mach 1.5 . At altitude of 10 km ( or about 32k feet ) Mig-25 will top out at about Mach 1.7 , but an F-16 with CFT and 2 AAM can still reach Mach 1.8. When they start to go higher , the variable intake of Mig-25 along its turbojet engine will give it higher excess thrust than F-16 => higher speed.

peace and love Bro.
what means "Quite hilarious how you sneakily try to push those agenda despite being schooled so many time and didnt have a single word back". You know I'm just a french frog without education....

1) You're wrong. The test was clearly made to evaluate the (clean) F35 against a (loaded) F16. Unfortunately the result was bad.... and the news leaks. Oups...
Just to remember : the JSF was promised with the handling capacity of a F16.... And do you think after 10 years of tests and developpments the FBW of the bird are not ready ??? They are. But the bird is the result of too much compromises to be agile.

2) Why not. The skill level of the pilot must be interesting in the comparison (a first leutnant vs a colonel?)
I'm interested in source about Rafale and F4E (but it can be true). Do you have it? (or is it a rumor).

3) Once again, it's not me but LM than promised JSF to be super cruising (because at those time a real 5th gen had to be stealth, supercruiser, and able to fusion data). F35 is not and will never be able to supercruise. Ask LM why.

Have a nice day

 

[BON PLAN]

Quite hilarious how you sneakily try to push those agenda despite being schooled so many time and didnt have a single word back
Fact 1: the test with F-16 was a high AoA test , to test the FBW not to see which aircraft is better in dogfight. The F-16 was used as a references point for F-35 high AoA control law

Once the pilot get used to the aircraft and the FCS was fixed , it is a completely different story
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Fact 2 : It actually very common for a more modern aircraft to lose to a legacy fighter in dogfight, the reason being that pilot skill also play very important role here
For example : F-22 has lost to T-38 ( basically an F-5)
http://jalopnik.com/5221219/f22-raptor-gets-fragged-by-t-38-training-jet

Rafale has lost to F-4E

Fact 3 : aircraft top speed is decided mostly by intake ability to recover pressure so just because an aircraft has slower top speed than another, doesnot mean it will be slower at all altitude. For example: top speed of Mig-25 is Mach 2.8 , top speed of F-16 with CFT is Mach 1.9. Base on that simple information , most people would think that it would be very simple for Mig-25 to out run F-16 at any altitude. They couldn't be more wrong. At low and medium altitude, an F-16 block 50+ in clean or in A2A configuration (with CFT in both case ) will be able to out accelerate and out run Mig-25 all day everyday. At sea level , Mig-25 will be struggled to reach Mach 0.8 but the F-16 can go over Mach 1.2. At altitude of 5km ( about 16k feet) , Mig-25 will just cross over Mach 1.2 while F-16 can go near Mach 1.5 . At altitude of 10 km ( or about 32k feet ) Mig-25 will top out at about Mach 1.7 , but an F-16 with CFT and 2 AAM can still reach Mach 1.8. When they start to go higher , the variable intake of Mig-25 along its turbojet engine will give it higher excess thrust than F-16 => higher speed.

Specially for you :

Lt. Col. Anker Steen Sørensen, Danish Air Force (retired)

I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety Armed Forces Denmark.

In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational requirements for new fighter aircraft.

In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England. To make the simulations as realistic as possible, we participated with operational pilots.

On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries. We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.

In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.

In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life.

We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.

My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.

It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.

It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations.

We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.

Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading / non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better performance than those who we were given permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.

We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command.

Due to these conditions and having insight into what else was going on, attempts were made from the Danish side to get an operational pilot to the Joint Program Office but due to some special circumstances it at that time failed.

With my speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that at least some of the air to air simulations that have been carried out, in no way give a true and fair view of the Joint Strike Fighter in the air defence role.

I consider it to be a disaster if simulations as mentioned above are accepted and thus forms part of a possible decision to choose the Joint Strike Fighter. (end of excerpt)

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6bea818e-e2a7-4ad3-9c0e-109348f93be9&subId=409097

 

[BON PLAN]

Quite hilarious how you sneakily try to push those agenda despite being schooled so many time and didnt have a single word back
Fact 1: the test with F-16 was a high AoA test , to test the FBW not to see which aircraft is better in dogfight. The F-16 was used as a references point for F-35 high AoA control law

Once the pilot get used to the aircraft and the FCS was fixed , it is a completely different story
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Fact 2 : It actually very common for a more modern aircraft to lose to a legacy fighter in dogfight, the reason being that pilot skill also play very important role here
For example : F-22 has lost to T-38 ( basically an F-5)
http://jalopnik.com/5221219/f22-raptor-gets-fragged-by-t-38-training-jet

Rafale has lost to F-4E

Fact 3 : aircraft top speed is decided mostly by intake ability to recover pressure so just because an aircraft has slower top speed than another, doesnot mean it will be slower at all altitude. For example: top speed of Mig-25 is Mach 2.8 , top speed of F-16 with CFT is Mach 1.9. Base on that simple information , most people would think that it would be very simple for Mig-25 to out run F-16 at any altitude. They couldn't be more wrong. At low and medium altitude, an F-16 block 50+ in clean or in A2A configuration (with CFT in both case ) will be able to out accelerate and out run Mig-25 all day everyday. At sea level , Mig-25 will be struggled to reach Mach 0.8 but the F-16 can go over Mach 1.2. At altitude of 5km ( about 16k feet) , Mig-25 will just cross over Mach 1.2 while F-16 can go near Mach 1.5 . At altitude of 10 km ( or about 32k feet ) Mig-25 will top out at about Mach 1.7 , but an F-16 with CFT and 2 AAM can still reach Mach 1.8. When they start to go higher , the variable intake of Mig-25 along its turbojet engine will give it higher excess thrust than F-16 => higher speed.

And another one...

Pete says:

MARCH 4, 2014 AT 7:06 PM

I worked at the facility in Fort Worth in the Engineering Test Laboratory for 27 Years. Trust me every thing about the cracks appearing in the test aircraft are true. The ground test aircraft and there are 3 of those, are cracked in so many places on bulkheads, longerons, aircraft skin that all testing has been stopped.
There have been many repairs attempted and some were done so badly out of incompetence while the guilty parties are busy pointing fingers at each other and claiming not to be at fault. Some repairs have been made to the airframe but now the data gathered from these test aircraft is compromised. As far as it’s use to determine the strength and longevity of the airframe can’t possibly be of much use.
It’s no wonder that in the fleet the reliability has gone way down and the problems continue to escalate.
Almost all of the work accomplished offsite by others has to be reworked by those in the lab before any testing can be accomplished. Some of this rework requires days, weeks and in some cases months to correct prior to testing.
These problems are not isolated to just the lab but includes the assembly line as well in fact on the assembly line the problem is magnified just by the number of individuals affected and the extra amount of time required to assemble the finished aircraft.

https://f35baddeal.wordpress.com/

 

[StealthFlanker]

1) You're wrong. The test was clearly made to evaluate the (clean) F35 against a (loaded) F16. Unfortunately the result was bad.... and the news leaks. Oups.

Nope , as stated clearly in the report , test was designed to stress the high AoA control law. There even a part talking about how the flaws control laws affect F-35 effectiveness in close combat. Yes the F-16 did carry 2 drop tank while F-35 didnot . Why ? very simple it need to extra fuel to stay in the air as long as the F-35 because the F-35 will internal fuel can stay in the air much longer than most fighter with internal fuel exclude su-35.

Just to remember : the JSF was promised with the handling capacity of a F16.... And do you think after 10 years of tests and developpments the FBW of the bird are not ready ??? They are. But the bird is the result of too much compromises to be agile.

If the FBW was fully ready you wouldn't need the test. It would have reach FOC immediately. As a matter of fact , the long development time is easily understandable with the level of complexity involved in the project. High AoA control is simply of lower priority compared to sensor fusion and similar thing

2) Why not. The skill level of the pilot must be interesting in the comparison (a first leutnant vs a colonel?)

Not necessary , but pilot need time to get used to the aircraft. The flight characteristics of F-16 and F-35 are entirely different. Their acceleration , STR , ITR will not be the same.Ask yourself this question :" what is the total hours an average pilot have on F-15 , F-16 ? what is the total hours an average pilot have on F-35 ? They may be an expert on piloting their legacy machine but still a learner when it come to piloting F-35 that just came to IOC recently

I'm interested in source about Rafale and F4E (but it can be true). Do you have it? (or is it a rumor)

No , it is not a rumor. It happened in Frisian Flag 2008 in Netherlands
http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/FF2008.html
http://loucosporaeromodelismo.com.br/2010/11/f-4-phantom-teria-vencido-rafale-no-frisian-flag/

3) Once again, it's not me but LM than promised JSF to be super cruising (because at those time a real 5th gen had to be stealth, supercruiser, and able to fusion data). F35 is not and will never be able to supercruise.

According to pilot

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November 2012/1112fighter.aspx
I doubt that Rafale can do better on internal fuel

 

[StealthFlanker]

Specially for you :

Lt. Col. Anker Steen Sørensen, Danish Air Force (retired)

I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety Armed Forces Denmark.

In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational requirements for new fighter aircraft.

In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England. To make the simulations as realistic as possible, we participated with operational pilots.

On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries. We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.

In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.

In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life.

We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.

My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.

It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.

It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations.

We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.

Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading / non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better performance than those who we were given permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.

We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command.

Due to these conditions and having insight into what else was going on, attempts were made from the Danish side to get an operational pilot to the Joint Program Office but due to some special circumstances it at that time failed.

With my speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that at least some of the air to air simulations that have been carried out, in no way give a true and fair view of the Joint Strike Fighter in the air defence role.

I consider it to be a disaster if simulations as mentioned above are accepted and thus forms part of a possible decision to choose the Joint Strike Fighter. (end of excerpt)

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6bea818e-e2a7-4ad3-9c0e-109348f93be9&subId=409097

That a funny one. I have saw that not just once but various time on various forum. Isn't it very strange that a retired Danish Lt. Colonel decided to write to Australian Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee about F-35 and his experiences with F-35 simulated flights ?. What could possibly his motive to write to Australian committee ? and why did he leave some very important pieces of information out of his writing like what years when he took part of those simulated flights (that was at least 12 years ago), what was the development state of simulators then ? Even a child would know that 12 years of development means huge difference and if he has followed F-35 program he must know that most of simulation capabilities has been added after he could've possibly took part of those simulations.

So i decided to dig further about Anker Steen Sørensen guy

Anker Steen Sørensen siger:
25. november 2014 kl. 17:03

Jeg er Service provider for Eurofighter – bare så I ved det. Jeg deltog også i konferencen.

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/6442/comment-page-1
=> google translate :

I'm Service provider for the Eurofighter - just so you know. I also participated in the conference.

Trying to look further , i found this gem

But it is a problem that the Danish pilots have not tested the Joint Strike Fighter, in fact, Anker Sørensen, a former squadron leader and head of the operations department for Skrydstrup. He has flown F-16 for 16 years, and now works as a consultant for the competitor to JSF, Eurofighter.

Anker Sørensen after his 40 years in the Army now a consultant for the Eurofighter.

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/eksperter-simulator-er-ikke-som-en-testflyvning
So not only that there is no actual evident that he actually tested the JSF , he is now also a consultant for Eurofighter , a competitor of F-35. Coincident ? I think not

 

[BON PLAN]

Nope , as stated clearly in the report , test was designed to stress the high AoA control law. There even a part talking about how the flaws control laws affect F-35 effectiveness in close combat. Yes the F-16 did carry 2 drop tank while F-35 didnot . Why ? very simple it need to extra fuel to stay in the air as long as the F-35 because the F-35 will internal fuel can stay in the air much longer than most fighter with internal fuel exclude su-35.

You're not serious. The F35 range is not so impressiv, and the F16 is not so shorter legs.

Maybe the F16 tanks were filled with water .... (this ultimate point is a joke).

 

[BON PLAN]

If the FBW was fully ready you wouldn't need the test. It would have reach FOC immediately. As a matter of fact , the long development time is easily understandable with the level of complexity involved in the project. High AoA control is simply of lower priority compared to sensor fusion and similar thing

IOC or FOC don't depend on FBW only ! it's a part, and only a part. And LM has a huge experience in FBW, so it's probably not the main difficulty of the program.

The actual lead time is mainly about support system, ALIS, Helmet, engine taking fire, cracks in the frame.

 

[BON PLAN]

No , it is not a rumor. It happened in Frisian Flag 2008 in Netherlands
http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/FF2008.html
http://loucosporaeromodelismo.com.br/2010/11/f-4-phantom-teria-vencido-rafale-no-frisian-flag/

OK. thanks !

 

[BON PLAN]

According to pilot
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November 2012/1112fighter.aspx
I doubt that Rafale can do better on internal fuel

Supercruising imply to reach and maintain supersonic speed without afterburner.
In this case I'm afraid F35 has to use after burner to reach mach 1.2. After.... why not....
Rafale is able to supercruise at mach 1.4 with 4 AAM.

 

[StealthFlanker]

You're not serious. The F35 range is not so impressiv, and the F16 is not so shorter legs.

Maybe the F16 tanks were filled with water .... (this ultimate point is a joke).

Iam serious, range wise, apart from Su-35 or F-15E with CFT.No modern fighter can compete with F-35 on internal fuel

IOC or FOC don't depend on FBW only

That correct but if FBW was finished, there would be no point for that test , as clearly indicated in the report what the test was for

Supercruising imply to reach and maintain supersonic speed without afterburner.
In this case I'm afraid F35 has to use after burner to reach mach 1.2. After.... why not....

Depending on load out , F-35 may need afterburner to excess the Mach barrier , but after that pilot can reduce thrust to Military power since Cdo often reduce after Mach 1 , which can reduce drag depending exact speed

Rafale is able to supercruise at mach 1.4 with 4 AAM.

I mean the distance it can fly , not the speed.

 

[WolfPack86]

Trump Tells Twitter He Wants A Super Hornet With F-35 Capabilities
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump may have had his meetings with the Lockheed Martin chief executive officer, but he’s not ready to play nice, tweeting on Thursday evening that he could look to Boeing’s Super Hornet as an alternative to the F-35.

“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” he tweeted at 5:26 p.m. EST.
Lockheed Martin stock, which had closed at $252.80 a share, tumbled down to $247.75 at about 7 p.m. EST, a 2 percent decline. At the same time, Boeing stock shot up by about 1.49 percent, increasing from $157.46 to $158.95 a share.
What this means for Lockheed Martin and its top competitor Boeing in the long term is not exactly clear. Although the F-35 has been plagued with its share of cost overruns and technical issues, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a fourth-generation plane that lacks many of the capabilities that define a fifth-generation plane, such as stealth and sensor fusion. Redesigning a Super Hornet that meets the same requirements as the F-35 would require years of development and engineering time and probably billions of dollars.
“We have committed to working with the president-elect and his administration to provide the best capability, deliverability and affordability across all Boeing products and services to meet our national security needs,” said Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher.

Speaking to Defense News at the Reagan National Defense Conference on Dec. 3, Boeing Defense head Leanne Caret expressed confidence that the F/A-18 line would expand out “well into the mid-2020s and beyond. ... I feel very comfortable with where we are with this line.”

A spokesman for Lockheed Martin declined to comment on the tweet, as did a spokesman for F-35 engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney.
Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group, said Trump’s tweet reflects “an interesting debate,” albeit one from years ago.

“For the Navy, at least, he’s not wrong about the plan,” he said. That service has limited its F-35C buys while continuously adding money into its budget for Super Hornets and its electronic warfare-capable brother, the E/A-18 Growler, which is manufactured on the same production line.

But “eventually somewhere towards the tail end of this administration, the Navy will have to shift to the C,” he said.

Aboulafia also acknowledged the difficulty of transforming an aircraft like an F/A-18 into a fifth-generation fighter. Super Hornets “are strike aircraft for a carrier deck. It’s a useful strike fighter for a large carrier, but its fundamentally a different aircraft. You can’t just make it stealthy," he said.
Earlier this week, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 joint program office chief, charted the progress of the program since it hit a Nunn McCurdy breach and was rebaselined in 2011. Since then, Bogdan said Monday, the F-35 program had operated mostly on schedule and mostly on cost, although he acknowledged that the end of developmental flight tests could be delayed by as much as seven months. The program also will likely need $532 million to finish development.

“If anybody would have told us in 2011 that we would be within a few months and a couple hundred million dollars of a $13 billion re-baseline, we’d all slap the table and say, 'We’d take it!'” he said.

“This program is not ‘out of control,’” he added, referencing an infamous Trump tweet from earlier this month that claimed just that.
Bogdan then met with Trump on Wednesday to talk over the F-35 program. Boeing head Dennis Muilenburg and Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson also had their own meetings with the president-elect.

Muilenburg framed the conversation as favorable, saying that they were “very productive” and that he was “really encouraged” by the “good, open discussion,” according to pool reports.

Hewson declined to give a statement, but Trump offered his own take:

“We’re just beginning, it’s a dance. It’s a little bit of a dance. But we’re going to get the costs down and we’re going to get it done beautifully.”
http://www.defensenews.com/articles...e-wants-a-super-hornet-with-f-35-capabilities

 

[WolfPack86]

Well, this. Live fist
https://twitter.com/livefist?lang=en