Re: F-35

hoarse with no name <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:no-E98E0F.15312518072005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <Xns9690EB7D92CC9Raghar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Raghar <notfor@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Is F-35 overexpected?
>
> You need better translation software.
>
didn't it mean an overestimation of expectation?

I was rather in a hurry, and my internet connection is a mess. So
expect a lot of typos in next month.

>> It looks like it would be worse performer than Su - 30...
>
> This is the first time I have ever seen the Su-30 referred to in
> strongly negative terms.
>
It was supposed to mean it looks like it would work less
efficiently than a several years old plane designed and funded in a
country that has a pretty low monetary resources for such thing.

>> Its stealth would be also bastardization of F-22.
>
> Whether or not the tech in the F-35 comes from previous planes
> will be irrelevant to those who fly it and against it.
>

However some countries might choose it because of its supposed
relations with F - 22. It's pseudo stealth might be one of reasons.

>
> And
>> everyone knows that antiradiation missiles against AWACs would
>> be the norm in the future warfare.
>
> I don't see how this affects the F-35 in a manner different from
> how it affects other planes except to say that the advantage
> goes to the F-35. For one thing, the radars on a flight of F-35s
> can radio their data to each other and form a composite picture
> based on all of their data. This will give a better
> understanding to the F-35 pilot in an AWAC-less and GCI-less
> environment than the pilot of planes without this tech.
>

Actually I ment if AWAC would be removed from F - 35 side. It looks
much more dependent on it, than majority of other planes. IIRC F -
35 radar's area is rather small. From what I know from astronomy,
small area of a detector is very harmful in some situations.

Data sharing would be pretty common technology for every country
that could afford fighter jets.

BTW thanks for that article about stealth on F - 35.

>
>> Its only advantage would be possibly maintenance costs. And of
>> course its expected to outsell Eurofighter. It would be more of
>> marketing however, than anything close to real ability.
>
> The F-35 is a much better bomber than the EF and bombing is the
> most common mission for military aircraft. The IR system on the
SEAD, CAS, air interception, FCP, and recon are important as well,
for country with ground army that is not scared to fight and take
some hits.

<snip>

> The F-35 will also likely be a better a2a competitor than the
> EF, though limited by only carrying 2 AMRAAMs. A better radar

So it would fire them all then turn and get R - 77, or MICA IR to
its very non-stealthy ***.

> and stealth should be enough to allow the F-35 to win against
> the EF.
>

Until development of a reasonable tactic.

> The F-35 should also cost around 1/3 less than the EF, though no
> one ever knows these things for certain until the ink is dry.
> There is only one engine in the F-35, which greatly reduces
> costs and the R&D for that engine is being assigned mostly to
> the F-22. The F-35 will also be built in vastly greater numbers
> and that will reduce per plane costs.
>
What would be interesting to see would be maintance costs, and
running costs. Majority of war planes are unlikely to see too much
fighting so such costs might be one of factors for non middle east
country.

> The EF will be faster and more maneuverable and carry far more
> AAMs. I think the F-35 comes out ahead on every other issue.
>
It has lower range, and there might be other isues with it.

> The real tragedy of the EF is to think what it could have been
> if the French had stayed on board. At the very least it would
> have cost less and been a better bomber due to the French
> emphasis on that. With costs under control the EF group might
> have decided to include an AESA radar right from the start.
> Other than having the coalition break apart, not including AESA
> radar was the biggest mistake.
>
I missed this event. What problems were with French? (aside battle
of agincourt, and ... , and ... ~_^)

.

Loading