China's new stealth fighter uses US tech.

reply to post by justwokeup


You do realize what the F-35s overriding purpose/selling point will be right?

Originally posted by hp1229
Hahaha...how true. UCAV are being used activtely in the middle east and afghanistan by remote pilots sitting in some air force base within the US. Amazing it is going back to who is the best JoyStick Jockey or Pinball Wizard

You call American UCAV use over remote Afghanistan and Pakistan to be air supremacy?

For one, a good part of UCAV use there, especially in Pakistan, is under CIA control. This has little to do with the military strategy, and certainly has nothing to do with "air supremacy".

Secondly, those UCAVs only fly around because there is ZERO enemy airforce to be afraid of, and they fly above most MANPADS ranges. In fact, there's been a few reports of Taliban/Al Qaeda militants downing UCAVs with MANPADS like Stingers or Iglas.

I fail to see how this is "air supremacy". It's more like if there wasn't American aircraft in the skies there, then there wouldn't be anything flying.

UCAV air supremacy is fantasy. Just like people who rally around rail gun technology. It's all in infancy stages and by the time the Americans improve these technologies, you can bet your ass that rival nations will have their own improved technology to counter the American threat.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yes. :-)

Don't confuse the VTOL equipment (ducted fan and vectoring nozzle) fitted to one model of the F-35 (the B version which will probably get cancelled I reckon) with the type of thrust vectoring fitted to the F-22 and some of the more advanced Su-27 spin offs.

Its not the same thing. The nozzle only rotates as a function of deploying the lift fan transitioning to the hover. It does not deploy actively through the envelope to endow the aircraft with increased manoeuvrability. (The F22 does, also the SU-30 MKI flown by the Indians).

The vast majority of F-35s (A and C) have no vectoring nozzles at all. In terms of manoeuvrability the F-35 is specced to be no better than the F-16 it replaces. Its a compromise due to trying for an all rounder.

The intent is that the full 360 degree FLIR sensor coverage (embedded in the airframe, not a turret) relayed on a head tracking helmet mounted display, coupled with high off bore-sight missiles covers for the shortfall when engaging in close. If you believe the blurb in the brochure that is.

Originally posted by justwokeup
Don't confuse the VTOL equipment (ducted fan and vectoring nozzle) fitted to one model of the F-35 (the B version which will probably get cancelled I reckon) with the type of thrust vectoring fitted to the F-22 and some of the more advanced Su-27 spin offs.

Interesting opinion.

Its not the same thing. The nozzle only rotates as a function of deploying the lift fan transitioning to the hover. It does not deploy actively through the envelope to endow the aircraft with increased manoeuvrability. (The F22 does, also the SU-30 MKI flown by the Indians).

Never said it was the same thing.

The vast majority of F-35s (A and C) have no vectoring nozzles at all. In terms of manoeuvrability the F-35 is specced to be no better than the F-16 it replaces. Its a compromise due to trying for an all rounder.

Can we get source on that?

reply to post by SLAYER69


I'll do a little digging and find you a source on the specifics of that debate.

In the meantime heres a Lockheed Martin video showcasing the sensor system I mentioned that they believe makes manoeuvrability irrelevant.

www.flightglobal.com...

reply to post by justwokeup


"The F-35 simply exits the fight and lets it's missiles do the turning"

Well we've heard that philosophy before back in the 50s and 60s with the "Century series fighters"
That's one reason why the F-4 Phantom didn't have machine guns/cannons. We know how that turned out in Dog fights over Vietnam...

Let's hope some 50 years later they get it right this time.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hope so as its the only show in town for those of us allies not allowed the F-22 :-)

Yeah. I'll admit the argument worries me a little but i'm old fashioned. It doesn't leave any room for survival when the missiles are gone. I wonder if this spells the end of training with the cannon. As you say, tried that before...

Heres an aviation week article discussing performance. Seems the F-35A roughly matches an F-18 in the manoeuvrability stakes. I know the F-35B is more compromised (7g limits) the wings are different. I'll look for that too.

www.aviationweek.com.../F35-030509.xml&headline=null&next=0

Theres something wrong with the link as embedded but if you cut and paste it works.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by hp1229
Hahaha...how true. UCAV are being used activtely in the middle east and afghanistan by remote pilots sitting in some air force base within the US. Amazing it is going back to who is the best JoyStick Jockey or Pinball Wizard

You call American UCAV use over remote Afghanistan and Pakistan to be air supremacy?

For one, a good part of UCAV use there, especially in Pakistan, is under CIA control. This has little to do with the military strategy, and certainly has nothing to do with "air supremacy".

Secondly, those UCAVs only fly around because there is ZERO enemy airforce to be afraid of, and they fly above most MANPADS ranges. In fact, there's been a few reports of Taliban/Al Qaeda militants downing UCAVs with MANPADS like Stingers or Iglas.

I fail to see how this is "air supremacy". It's more like if there wasn't American aircraft in the skies there, then there wouldn't be anything flying.

UCAV air supremacy is fantasy. Just like people who rally around rail gun technology. It's all in infancy stages and by the time the Americans improve these technologies, you can bet your ass that rival nations will have their own improved technology to counter the American threat.

First of all I didnt term or call it as 'Air Supremacy'. I simply agreed to the point made by TedHodgson that unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or unmanned aerial combat vehicle (UCAV) is the future of the Air Force around the world not just the US. That in the future there will be limited real pilots required by the Air Forces around the world since majority will be using a JOYSTICK to fly the planes. The one's that we see are slow speed (no doubt it is in its infancy) UAV which you cannot even term as UCAV even though they are used to fire missiles. The UCAV's will be the hypersonic or high speed vehicles that can handle obscene G force since there are no humans involved. Who knows there are UCAV's already flying around the world (UFO's) that we see the reports about???

I am aware that other countries are investing in UAV/UCAV and I'm sure there are several countries who follow other country's technology and derive their own version or counter measure(s) for it. This is nothing new. It has been this way for thousands of years when it comes to War/Military Technology.

Some of the flights are CIA controlled and some of them are USAF controlled (Depends which specific UAV).

reply to post by TedHodgson


Of course the US sells China military technology. The US are the global arms dealers and they keep the world in a constant state of conflict because its good business. They don't have anything else that they can export.

Countries that don't want to buy military equipment from the US soon find themselves in a situation where they really need it.

Originally posted by Seagle
reply to post by TedHodgson

 

Of course the US sells China military technology. The US are the global arms dealers and they keep the world in a constant state of conflict because its good business. They don't have anything else that they can export.

Countries that don't want to buy military equipment from the US soon find themselves in a situation where they really need it.

Even RUSSIA was provided with the nuclear technology not just to keep the power in balance but to also create an adversary to compete with and its a win win situation as it helps to create new technology when you have competition but to also justify the existence of an entity or military's budget within a country. Surely when there are trade deals made between the polticians or companies with foreign firms with respect to military technology, there are tonnes of international contractual obligations not to mention money involved. So what better way then to sell the PATENT/Technology and make money on the royalty Just take a look at the TELEPHONE or CELLPHONE services around the world and the amount of money the phone companies make just on the patent or royalty. Keeping track of the copyrights and its violations is another ball game and issue with CHINA

Originally posted by Seagle
reply to post by TedHodgson

 

Of course the US sells China military technology. The US are the global arms dealers and they keep the world in a constant state of conflict because its good business. They don't have anything else that they can export.

Countries that don't want to buy military equipment from the US soon find themselves in a situation where they really need it.

The United States hasn't sold China military equipment or technology since 1989. China developed the J-20 independently, here is a detailed comparison of the J-20 and F-22.

politikalmatters.blogspot.com...