just in time for Korean War part 2
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Chinese stealth fighter flies!
- Thread starter busaguy79
- Start date
Doubt they have access in detail to a F-22 Raptor or a Sukhoi PAK FA. But they are great on reverse engineering, wonder if they have stole any secrets from Russia or U.S.?
India is well on its way with a Fifth generation jet fighter with Russian development help.
what, are you saying that anonymous internet experts don't know their shit or something? well...YOU'RE WRONG!!!! rabblerabblerabble...
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
:tinhat:
All the money keeeps onld men fat, not the nation tough.
china peeled off Terabyties of data with an internet attack on the pentagon on f22 anbd f35.
Yeah I've never flown one. Why don't you enlighten us on how great they are, naval aviator?
Now lets have another look at the Hornet program:
YF17 testbed for a lightweight fighter. Comes 2nd place to F16.
f18 Hornet. Carrier jet adopted over a navaised F16 on the basis of twin engine reliability.
the need for twin engines disspaeared when F35 appeared, however.
F18E super hornet.
Precisely the opposite of everything the YF17 )its ancestor) stood for: Large and heavy.
7.5 G limit.
Sizae and weight; approximately that of an F15 (the original objective of the lightweight fighter comeptition which spawned the yf17 being to make a smalll and light jet (not a rehash of F111 like F14 and F15 intiially appeared to be.
A cynical observer may conclude that the navys reason for adopting the hornet and tomcat wasn't anything practical, but mere pride.
By the way, when these pilots praise the aircraft, have they flown anything else? Do they have a press officer standing over their shoulder? Because the us military has praised the Stryker before.
Would YOU like to go to war in the Stryker?
i was merely making a generically ignorant anti-china, pro-west comment... but anyway i haven't bothered to look up any known specs but from what i understand they're supposed to be comparable planes with the same role, though the china plane is no doubt supposed to be more advanced and capable, otherwise, why bother...i don't honestly think it's a blatant rip-off, i was just poking fun at a lot of the chinese knock-offs of popular, well-established commercial and recreational products
The Tomcat was picked because of the Phoenix weapon system and its standoff capability, i dont think any plane was able to handle that at the time.
The Navy back then did not want a similar platform of the Air force, remember this was the cold war with a ton of money to spend, so the Hornet was preferred over the F-16 as a dedicated Navy plane.
The F-111 has nothing in common other the variable wing to the F-14, one is a standoff fighter / dogfighter and the other a fighter bomber, neither is a F-15, i agree.
The hornet was preferred by the Navy because it had twin engines which is funny because the F-35 which will replace most of the early hornets has only one engine.
The F-111 was first desinged as a joint Air Force/Navy ATF project which the Navy dropped because the F-111 became to big and heavy for carrier use, it was to have the Pheonix weapon system. Grumman got whiff and desinged what was to become the F-14 and the Navy went with it.
The Tomcat was in service before the F-15 and in fact an Air Force version was in the works but dropped due to high costs.
One reason the F-16 wasn'[t navalized was because of its single engine, at the time the Navy wanted twin engines so if there was an engine failure during a catapult takeoff the plane could still get airborne.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
think of china as a uh...how do you say...loan shark...
maildude
Postal Paranoiac
That's one of the biggest problems with the F-35. Here again America is dabbling with jump jet technology, which is unreliable and expensive. There were three designs in production, but all of them were almost cost prohibitive. It's part of the JSF Program but replacing slightly outdated aircraft with newer and untested jets might cost more than the U.S. Congress is willing to accept. Plus, most of the changes over the X-35 were structural in nature, begging the question of whether it's worth it versus the rest of the world. Besides...I don't trust Lockheed Martin.:2 cents:
It was the Marines and Royal Navy that wanted and will eventually get the jump jet version possibly lol
One thing I can actually say is if you look at the stats the Navy version of the F-35, the F-35C is the best of the three varients of this aircraft, just wish it didn't have the single engine!
Also wish the superbug will get the upgraded engines (27,000-28,000 thrust) that it was suppose to get!
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I was.
Ah right, I see.
What the chinese claim and the truth are usually unrelated btw.
You said it yourself; the Navy didn't want a similar platform to the air force.
Although I admit that Phoenix is a nasty bit of kit to throw at the enemy.
One thing I will NEVER understand is why the usaf didn't buy a load of phoenixs and F14 radars, put the radar on a B52 and a couple of Phoenixs under the wings and BANG! Massively harder to intercept.
It wasn't preferred for twin engines. It was preferred for making the Navy distinctive.
The twin engine reason was smoke to hide the fact that the Navy, in their big dick pride, didn't want to fly what the AF flew, or a variant of it, as Mcnamara had planned and as happened with the (awful) F4.
See above.
Billions of $s could've been saved by just adopting navalised F16, or Navalised F15 and F16.
I like the F14, but it's too big, too heavy and variable geometry wings are one hell of a maintenance issue.
You don't trust Lockheed Martin? But don't you know they never lie? And would never lie about F35. They never lied about the F104 and there was nothing wrong with the procurement of F104. They never falsely claimed F35 was cheaper than Gripen...
Britain doesn't have the cash.
We should dump the whole carrier scheme - having just one carrier is more trouble than it's worth.
It would be better tpo have many so as to lower costs and share parts.
As for F35 there's absolutely no reason to go buying it for our one carrier.
It's the biggest, heaviest single engined fighter since the F105 Thud of Vietnam vintage and the version Britain gets won't even be stealth, just LO, 'cos the us doesn't see us as worthy of the tech (thanks guys, way to keep the special relationship going!).
For one carrier, what makes sense is a navalised Typhoon. We'd have parts commonality with the RAF and other Typhoon operators.
For many carriers a Navalised Typhoon makes more sense than F35 which is too big, too heavy, not stealth (unless you're america) and can't supercruise.
Buy Irbis E from the Russians or develop our own stealth-spotter radar and stick those in the noses of the Typhoons and the jobs done.
We could almost certainly pay to navalise the Typhoon and get a stealth-spotter radar with the funds we'd make availabl by dropping F35.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
India and Russia are close and both have historical problems with the chinese.China vs Russia.. next great battle for Euroasia. Who shall win?
Or maybe it will be India vs China battle for Asia.. 1.5billion indians vs 1.3 billion Chinese, looks like a great matchup. Get your popcorn ready!!
If we in the west are lucky china will move aggressively North in pursuit of poor Russia's oil.
The Indians will then seize the chance to help their ally and take a chunk out of their competitor and attack china.
with china split in two she could be vastly reduced in capability.
Allowing Europe to regain her feet. If we're lucky.
If Chinese are smart they would take advantage of any conflict and overthrow their communist government.
Wow, those chinese bootleggers are really impressive! Bootlegging stealth technology now!
Similar threads
