Pictures fron MAKS-2007

Originally posted by thebozeian
Really Westy 600? I thought it was less than that...

Well, I rounded up... Currently the USN plans to procure 460 Super Hornets and another 90 Growlers for a total of 550 aircraft, down from the 1,000 planned in the 90's. It was recently announced that Boeing and the USN were discussing extending Rhino production until to 2014-2016. This would add another 152-170 airframes to the total planned buy, yet it would also overlap with full rate production of the F-35C. Currently the USN plans to acquire 600 F-35C.

Originally posted by thebozeian
And those "certain things" might be "issues" with the F-35 I assume?

Perhaps, however the Navy says it needs more fighters as it will reach an inventory shortfall when some of the early Supers reach the end of their airframe hours. This problem is not helped by the current number of high tempo ops the USN is having to perform on multiple fronts. The navy could easily buy more Lightning's to compensate but the powers that be may want to get as many Rhinos as possible before it's production line closes. As for the F-35C, the planned naval buy has not decreased dramatically so it is still in good shape, even if it's production slightly overlaps with the Super Hornet.

Source

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by mastermind77
If only humans made toys to bring life instead of fear it into death or submissive control from religious and political rogues. THough i must say id like to own a stealth ufo rather than a modern aircraft with wings.. space..here i come!

Ahh but then that life would eventually evolve, revolt and end up being instruments of our destruction again!
cough..cylons..cough..skynet..cough..TVfreak..cough.

I certainly like these photo`s :

Nice transport copter :



NATO forces certainly recognise this classic :



Nice little cute KAMOV copter :



Another "sick" Russian AA Vehicle or something like that :



A very nice private aircraft :



Thanks for watching

[edit on 27/8/2007 by James R. Hawkwood]

Cha-ching! After wading through photos and swaths of tail numbers, look what's been tracked down.

Right side cockpit+Bort


Right Side


I hate the camo, but it is my favorite plane of the moment. Anyone know what it is? If you guessed Su-35 BM, you know your stuff. Go have a cookie.

Side-note: It appears as though only this prototype will be called the Su-35 BM and others will be named just Su-35. How does this affect the Su-35's already in service? I have no idea.

I was really hoping for that beautiful arctic camo for the BM line, but alas, alas.

www.knaapo.com...


the SU-27BM (SU-35) is a nice looking aircraft - nice to see a new single seater from them.


img3067.imagevenue.com...

i`m trying to get confirmation but i have heard that the above is now in service (and in numbers) and also up for sale via a partnership with India

[edit on 2/9/07 by Harlequin]

Just exactly why had the Su-35's canards been dropped from the BM model?

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Harlequin
i`m trying to get confirmation but i have heard that the above is now in service (and in numbers) and also up for sale via a partnership with India...

That missile is way to big for it's control surfaces and for handling G's, not very aerodynamic either, looks like it was designed for one thing, range. Might be good for slow and large targets that wont change course but for anything else it will be a white elephant, i.e. ineffective. I'm thinking it's size (signature) and bad handling will make it susceptible not only to AESA (AAM) combinations but also to EW attack...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I'm thinking it's size (signature) and bad handling will make it susceptible not only to AESA (AAM) combinations but also to EW attack...

The R-172 was made for high-value asset whacking. AWACS, Tankers, and Air Force One. The maneuvering options for those are pretty limited anyway, so high-G tolerances aren't particularly necessary. The R-37 is more intended for the more difficult hits with its shorter range, higher speed, and larger fins. But you are right, the R-172 could very well be countered by the EW and AESA.

Just exactly why had the Su-35's canards been dropped from the BM model?

Thrust Vectoring was deemed better for the canards' duties. That's my theory, anyway. The canards were really, really small and I suspect they were more necessary on the Su-33 where as much lifting surface as possible was required for carrier takeoffs; no catapult on the Russian carriers. Which is disappointing, canards are sexy.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Harlequin
i`m trying to get confirmation but i have heard that the above is now in service (and in numbers) and also up for sale via a partnership with India...

That missile is way to big for it's control surfaces and for handling G's, not very aerodynamic either, looks like it was designed for one thing, range. Might be good for slow and large targets that wont change course but for anything else it will be a white elephant, i.e. ineffective. I'm thinking it's size (signature) and bad handling will make it susceptible not only to AESA (AAM) combinations but also to EW attack...

The S-300/400 Missiles look similar, but if you look at video's of them they are very areodynamic.

reply to post by WestPoint23


as darkpro said - its designed for high speed , slow moving high value target whacking - awacs, tankers etc , hence the high speed and long range but low `G` limit (not needed for the mission) - also it looks like it uses thrust deflection for changing course (in the main)

mach 4 is 4870 kmh - which means to cover the 400km range would take 5mins - that is not alot of time for locating a small target and attempting to evade.


but then again if all the missiles in teh world did what the makers claimed - there would be no flying fighter jets left!

reply to post by Darkpr0


Darkpr0 I totally see your theory, but for an air superiority fighter, wouldn't eliminating parts of the plane that made it more maneuverable be contradictory to its purpose? I mean sure the thrust vectoring can pick up some of the slack left over, but wouldn't the Canards still give it an advantage?

Shattered OUT...

Who knows how many T/R modular AN/APG-77 contains?

reply to post by ShatteredSkies



I u look closely on the wings, u will see that they have enlargen the leading-edge flaps(the whole lenght of the wing).

By doing this they increased the manuvrebility and lift. Decreased the drag.

By removing the Carnards, they decreased the dra and RCS!

Cheers..

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
reply to post by Darkpr0

 

wouldn't eliminating parts of the plane that made it more maneuverable be contradictory to its purpose?

Not realy in the case off the 35BM. Because eliminating the canards has the advantages off saving weight and reducing RCS.

And btw: The canards purpose off maneuverabillity is the same one as the TVC so in other words, the TVC replaces the canards and has the advantage off less RCS and having more controllabillity in post stall conditions. (The 35BM has, when max loaded with fuel and weapons, a T/W ratio off .85 so thats why it has TVC to control post stall)

I mean sure the thrust vectoring can pick up some of the slack left over, but wouldn't the Canards still give it an advantage?

Like i said, TVC totaly replaces the canards but a foreign customer still has the option to have canards on iff it wants to.

[edit on 25/9/2008 by James R. Hawkwood]