|
priznat posted:The main losses of CF-104s were due to engine failure from eating a bird, iirc. Another reason they should have gone with the X32. That big ol' intake looks just overjoyed to eat some birds.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
TheFluff posted:Thank you! Engine failure isn't much of a problem with modern planes unless someone got the idea to upgrading their single-engine plane with a Tumansky R-15 (do this). Now ejection seats on the other hand, those will gently caress you up 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Another reason they should have gone with the X32. So true. OM NOM NOM MOAR BIRDZ AND FRENCH FRIED PERTATERS
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:For Canadian fighters having two engines is very important; Canada has a square km area roughly the size of Europe, with most of it having the population density of Siberia. That means being able to fly long distances with engine failure is *extremely* handy. (Still the F-35 only has the one engine and that is not stopping the government.) Range is important, too, for the same reason. I think that the Gripen would be a decent choice, being able to do about 80% of what Canada would actually use its fighter aircraft for. Dunno how reliable the numbers here are, but:  From that thing, best range on internal fuel for the "blue planes" is the Rafale, with 3700 km. Followed by Eurofighter Typhoon (2900) and Gripen (2500). Range is easy to extend with drop tanks. Best range overall from this picture would be the PAK FA or the J-20, but I'm taking the "red planes" stats with a pinch of salt. Insane Totoro posted:Serious question: aren't stealth and LO more important in the long run than anything else given the advances in missiles and other potential future threats to fighters? Rafale is RAM-coated and equipped with powerful jammers. The Rafale's M88-2 engines have also been designed to reduce IR signature as much as possible. It's not angular and doesn't have internal weapon bays, so the external missiles, pods, and tanks will compromise the RCS, but jammers are a safer bet anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
There's a picture of a Super Etendard beside the "Mirage F1" text?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
The PAK-FA's ceiling is pretty impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The PAK-FA's ceiling is pretty impressive. True - can the F-35 intercept things in orbit?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:True - can the F-35 intercept things in orbit? Isn't that what the pew pew laser is for? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:There's a picture of a Super Etendard beside the "Mirage F1" text? No, they got it right. The Super Etendard is swept further back and it has a cruciform tail, while the Mirage F1 has a tailplane at nearly the same height as the wings.    
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
More importantly, the S etendard is butt loving ugly (an achievement considering the frame it's based on wasn't so bad), whereas the F1 is a pretty flower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Conspicuous in its absence is the SA Canadian milgoon's choice, the F-15SE. I'm not going to say the SE is vaporware, but since it lost the ROK's FX-III (re)competition there's basically no chance of it ever existing. It's far from being anything close to a program that you could put forth in a competition. \/ I agree, and it's unfortunate Boeing didn't offer something based on the F-15SA with FBW and the EW suite (and probably without downgraded radar/avionics) \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
A Strike Eagle variant is still the right choice for Canada, with new Super Hornets next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
PAK-FA/T-50 had a little oopsy.quote:Sukhoi has played down the impact on its T-50/PAK-FA programme of a fire that damaged one of the five flight test aircraft while on the ground at Zhukovsky air base near Moscow on 10 June.   To me, there looks like a ton of composites damage on the other side and the lower surfaces though. Haven't seen a reliable source say why it happened it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Stray dog in the engine intake 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Maybe they copied the F-35's fifth generation feature of catching fire whenever the gun is fired?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Maybe they copied the F-35's fifth generation feature of catching fire whenever the gun is fired? In all honesty it's kinda odd that you don't get the "OMG THE PAK-FA JUST SPONTANEOUSLY BURSTS INTO FLAMES" posts you used to get for the F-22 and get now for the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Looks like their lovely bodywork came loose just like some idiot in a CRX who went over a speed bump too fast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:In all honesty it's kinda odd that you don't get the "OMG THE PAK-FA JUST SPONTANEOUSLY BURSTS INTO FLAMES" posts you used to get for the F-22 and get now for the F-35. Because nobody really expects anything else from the Russians and a PAK-FA probably costs a quarter as much as a F-35 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
priznat posted:Looks like their lovely bodywork came loose just like some idiot in a CRX who went over a speed bump too fast. Now that's more like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
I personally believe the PAK-FA is just smoke and mirrors bullshit and it, much like the J-20, are stupendously outclassed by even the current version of the F-35 to say nothing of the F-22. But then I am an optimist  Vvvv totally agree. Don't get why they can even be considered comparable. I will still rip the poo poo out of them though. priznat fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:In all honesty it's kinda odd that you don't get the "OMG THE PAK-FA JUST SPONTANEOUSLY BURSTS INTO FLAMES" posts you used to get for the F-22 and get now for the F-35. I think it's entirely reasonable to have different standards for low-rate paper tiger experimental aircraft programs and trillion-dollar weapons systems that have been in development for twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:I think it's entirely reasonable to have different standards for low-rate paper tiger experimental aircraft programs and trillion-dollar weapons systems that have been in development for twenty years. Eh, I don't know if they're paper tigers, at least not entirely. I'm just amazed because there's just so much advertising and propaganda about them, along with the usual "OMG BEST AIRPLANE IN THE WORLD" on the internet similar to what you saw with the F-22 and F-35 for a while. As a result I'd just expect the same amount of fervent negativity! Warbadger fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Dunno how reliable the numbers here are, but: Rafale's price will come down significantly since Dassault said we can build most of the components in Canada should we choose. Lockmart said we might have the chance to bid on some F-35 parts if they feel like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:http://www.historynet.com/congo-crisis-operation-dragon-rouge.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
 B-2 Spirits landing in Britain. It's like St. Maarten only less beach and 747s and more  and  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dcf_1402358836
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Love it when someone floats the idea of jump-starting Canada's fighter industry and developing one from scratch. You think the F-35 is a boondoggle and delayed, try getting companies in Quebec to do R&D and not just spend it all on hookers, coke, and the inevitable helicopter escape from jail. Starting a fighter from scratch, 50% off the shelf components, 50% Canadian developed. . . what would you say? 20 years to make a mediocre fighter? 40 to develop and decent one after a few prototypes and upgrades?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Love it when someone floats the idea of jump-starting Canada's fighter industry and developing one from scratch. You think the F-35 is a boondoggle and delayed, try getting companies in Quebec to do R&D and not just spend it all on hookers, coke, and the inevitable helicopter escape from jail. Starting a fighter from scratch, 50% off the shelf components, 50% Canadian developed. . . what would you say? 20 years to make a mediocre fighter? 40 to develop and decent one after a few prototypes and upgrades? You guys need to get out ahead and just try to be the first on the block with something really revolutionary. Think if when you shitcanned your fighter development you'd dived straight into working on drones. That sort of thing. What I'm saying is, starfighters or bust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You guys need to get out ahead and just try to be the first on the block with something really revolutionary. Think if when you shitcanned your fighter development you'd dived straight into working on drones. That sort of thing. They already went with that once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
And make sure that you outsource half the coding to a Quebecois company that forgets to write things in English.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX_FO1NAKeE I could watch B-2s refuel all day. All those tiny flap corrections... it's like watching a living creature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
/\ It's like watching some manner of mantis gliding in the ocean. Seeing it fly is like watching something otherworldly.mlmp08 posted:And make sure that you outsource half the coding to a Quebecois company that forgets to write things in English. Doling out contracts to Quebec engineering, design, and manufacturing firms is like taking half of your original investment and giving it directly to the mafia. Blistex fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Doling out contracts to Quebec engineering, design, and manufacturing firms is like taking half of your original investment and giving it directly to the mafia. Still, the Mafia is probably less corrupt than SNC Lavalin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You guys need to get out ahead and just try to be the first on the block with something really revolutionary. Think if when you shitcanned your fighter development you'd dived straight into working on drones. That sort of thing. Instead of having conventional aircraft carriers, why not have smaller, cheaper escort carriers that can launch Canadian developed drones? Now a step further: Drone aircraft Carrier submarine Am I doing this right lockmart
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Instead of having conventional aircraft carriers, why not have smaller, cheaper escort carriers that can launch Canadian developed drones? Not quite right. It's a LO stealthy VTOL carrier submarine drone that carries F-35 drones. It's initial buy in cost would be only one billion per unit(of course, the contract would require you to pay whatever the final cost is after it spends 20 extra years in development)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Blistex posted:/\ It's like watching some manner of mantis gliding in the ocean. Seeing it fly is like watching something otherworldly. And then you have to make what they did actually work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Instead of having conventional aircraft carriers, why not have smaller, cheaper escort carriers that can launch Canadian developed drones? Might as well go all the way and make them Macross-style variable fighter drones in that aircraft carrier submarine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Turn the busted rear end HMCS Protecteur into a starblazers-esque spaceship with a big honkin wave motion cannon in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
priznat posted:Turn the busted rear end HMCS Protecteur into a starblazers-esque spaceship with a big honkin wave motion cannon in the middle. It'd work better than the Yamato would. You know, due to not being blown in half.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
It's a little crispy though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 05:19
|
|