By: Jessmo23
- 1st February 2016 at 03:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Errrrrrrr..... again, where have I mentioned the F-22-like requirement? Are you seeing things?
ITS A 2ND OPTION AFTER BEING rufused the F-22. Why would they pay obscene amounts of money for an F-35 equivalent?
Sir, Do try and keep up!
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 1st February 2016 at 03:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From what I understand, the X-2 can't carry weapons though, or at least it has no weapons bay. Nothing wrong with that -- it's a stealth fighter demonstrator, not a stealth fighter or even a stealth fighter prototype.
Funnily enough I remember back on this very forum when J-20 first emerged, people were saying it didn't have a weapons bay...
nothing wrong with a demonstrator. you are a bit more sensible. but the majority vast don't really know what it is and want to bash it
as for j-20. not me. that thing is huge, it has to have a bay. its the china bashers relying on some poor resolution images that jumped to that conclusion.
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 1st February 2016 at 03:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, I thought Msphere Kopp, LIL Billy sweetman ( LOW OBSERVABLE) and the like established long ago that stealth doesnt work. I thought the consensus was that the premise of stealth will be obsolete. By 2030 the pacific rim will be crawling with them!
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 1st February 2016 at 04:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not sure that someone who mistook a sub-scale technology demonstrator for a full-scale prototype has much business throwing stones at anyone.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 1st February 2016 at 09:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ITS A 2ND OPTION AFTER BEING rufused the F-22. Why would they pay obscene amounts of money for an F-35 equivalent?
Sir, Do try and keep up!
Keep up with what? Your self invented claims which you're then trying to put into my mouth? :eagerness:
Thanks God this thread is only two pages long...
Hmm, I thought Msphere Kopp, LIL Billy sweetman ( LOW OBSERVABLE) and the like established long ago that stealth doesnt work. I thought the consensus was that the premise of stealth will be obsolete. By 2030 the pacific rim will be crawling with them!
Now you got me.. :applause: But your best buddy hopsalot could have a problem with that as he has maintained a position that I was a Norwegian for quite a time..
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 1st February 2016 at 10:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Msphere I did not make the claim that the Japanese want F-22 capability. Its public knowledge.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Japan, seeking to replace its aging fleet of fighter aircraft, began making overtures to the United States on the topic of purchasing several*Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor*fighters for their own forces.[5]*However the U.S. Congress had banned the exporting of the aircraft in order to safeguard secrets of the aircraft's technology such as its extensive use of stealth; this rejection necessitated Japan to develop its own modern fighter, to be equipped with stealth features and other advanced systems.
SMH, Do try and keep up
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 1st February 2016 at 12:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What does "F-22 capability" even mean? Personally I expect the Japanese would have set their sights quite a bit higher than emulating an aircraft that entered service 25 years earlier and was probably never ideally suited to Japanese requirements in the first place.
By: stealthflanker
- 1st February 2016 at 13:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, I thought Msphere Kopp, LIL Billy sweetman ( LOW OBSERVABLE) and the like established long ago that stealth doesnt work. I thought the consensus was that the premise of stealth will be obsolete. By 2030 the pacific rim will be crawling with them!
What are you talking about dude ? Did those people steal your GF ?
I never heard..especially Kopp talking about "Stealth doesn't work" and i believe so is Bill Sweetman. Especially Kopp.. who were happen to have concept of Stealthy transport aircraft.
By: Sintra
- 1st February 2016 at 13:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, I thought Msphere Kopp, LIL Billy sweetman ( LOW OBSERVABLE) and the like established long ago that stealth doesnt work. I thought the consensus was that the premise of stealth will be obsolete. By 2030 the pacific rim will be crawling with them!
Kopp and Bill Sweetman "established long ago that stealth doesnt work"?!
And this coming from someone who a few day´s ago didnt knew the ATD-X project.
Lovely, absolutely lovely.
Carlo Kopp the chap with a "PhD thesis, which dealt with the properties of high capacity ad hoc networks and long range microwave datalinks, using X-band and Ku-band radar apertures", has been a (very) vocal suporter of Low RCS airframes, one of its main (of many) criticisms of the JSF is that DAVE is not stealth enough (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html). Almost the same could be said of Sweetman.
By: Deino
- 1st February 2016 at 16:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:confused: Nowhere does it say that the new fighter should have the F-22 capability (whatever that means..)
Price-wise !
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 1st February 2016 at 17:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:confused: Nowhere does it say that the new fighter should have the F-22 capability (whatever that means..)
So your saying that the Japanese DO NOT want a high end 5th generation fighter in the class of the F-22? Lets be clear here because im going to make fools out of a few of you lol. You have been trumpeting that stealth is obsolete for years, when dealing with the F-35.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 1st February 2016 at 23:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So your saying that the Japanese DO NOT want a high end 5th generation fighter in the class of the F-22? Lets be clear here because im going to make fools out of a few of you lol. You have been trumpeting that stealth is obsolete for years, when dealing with the F-35.
I have no idea what they want.. I have not found a single reference stating the F-3 must have Raptor-like performance.. The fact that they were interested in the F-22 once does not mean they are aiming for the same goal.
We positively know that the F-3 shall primarily be an A-A aircraft, with the possibility of a strike version developed later. But the most important aspect Japan should be interested in is developing their own hi-end military technology to counter regional and global rivals like China and Russia. Better or worse than F-22, that's just buzzwords no one really cares about..
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 2nd February 2016 at 00:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But you have the F-35. You dont need 2 fighters LIKE the F-35. The main driving force behind, the X-2 has to do with them being excluded from the F-22 club.
There odviously is a requirment. Perhaps you should write prime minister ABE, and ask for a national defense white paper, clarifying his reasoning behind the X-2. Im sure hell have it by next week.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 2nd February 2016 at 01:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why would I do that? I am not terribly interested in such information, anyway..
By: snafu352
- 2nd February 2016 at 11:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F35 is not an air superiority aircraft. It appears to have some air to air capability.
The F3 is apparently intended as an air to air platform in its primary guise.
Repeating over and over that "you have the F35" does not turn said primarily strike focused platform into the type of air to air capable platform that the F3 appears to be intended to be.
I'm not sure that it can be put in much simpler terms for you than that.
By: SpudmanWP
- 2nd February 2016 at 15:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 is an Air Superiority Fighter per NATO definition. What it is likely not is an Air Supremacy (aka Air Dominance) Fighter.
air superiority / supériorité aérienne
AS
That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
01 Feb 1973
air supremacy / maîtrise de l'air
That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference.
01 Feb 1973
By: Rii
- 2nd February 2016 at 16:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Air Superiority" vs. "Air Supremacy" vs. "Air Dominance" just demonstrates just how much NATO/USAF/LM etc. have in common with condom manufacturers: we have a range of sizes available, all of which are labelled to satisfy your ego and lady friend.
Looking forward to the 6th Gen "Air Annihilation" fighter.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 1st February 2016 at 03:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ITS A 2ND OPTION AFTER BEING rufused the F-22. Why would they pay obscene amounts of money for an F-35 equivalent?
Sir, Do try and keep up!
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 1st February 2016 at 03:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
nothing wrong with a demonstrator. you are a bit more sensible. but the majority vast don't really know what it is and want to bash it
as for j-20. not me. that thing is huge, it has to have a bay. its the china bashers relying on some poor resolution images that jumped to that conclusion.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 1st February 2016 at 03:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, I thought Msphere Kopp, LIL Billy sweetman ( LOW OBSERVABLE) and the like established long ago that stealth doesnt work. I thought the consensus was that the premise of stealth will be obsolete. By 2030 the pacific rim will be crawling with them!
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 1st February 2016 at 04:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not sure that someone who mistook a sub-scale technology demonstrator for a full-scale prototype has much business throwing stones at anyone.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 1st February 2016 at 09:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Keep up with what? Your self invented claims which you're then trying to put into my mouth? :eagerness:Thanks God this thread is only two pages long... Now you got me.. :applause: But your best buddy hopsalot could have a problem with that as he has maintained a position that I was a Norwegian for quite a time..
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 1st February 2016 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Msphere I did not make the claim that the Japanese want F-22 capability. Its public knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_X-2_Shinshin
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Japan, seeking to replace its aging fleet of fighter aircraft, began making overtures to the United States on the topic of purchasing several*Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor*fighters for their own forces.[5]*However the U.S. Congress had banned the exporting of the aircraft in order to safeguard secrets of the aircraft's technology such as its extensive use of stealth; this rejection necessitated Japan to develop its own modern fighter, to be equipped with stealth features and other advanced systems.
SMH, Do try and keep up
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 1st February 2016 at 12:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What does "F-22 capability" even mean? Personally I expect the Japanese would have set their sights quite a bit higher than emulating an aircraft that entered service 25 years earlier and was probably never ideally suited to Japanese requirements in the first place.
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 1st February 2016 at 13:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What are you talking about dude ? Did those people steal your GF ?
I never heard..especially Kopp talking about "Stealth doesn't work" and i believe so is Bill Sweetman. Especially Kopp.. who were happen to have concept of Stealthy transport aircraft.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 1st February 2016 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kopp and Bill Sweetman "established long ago that stealth doesnt work"?!
And this coming from someone who a few day´s ago didnt knew the ATD-X project.
Lovely, absolutely lovely.
Carlo Kopp the chap with a "PhD thesis, which dealt with the properties of high capacity ad hoc networks and long range microwave datalinks, using X-band and Ku-band radar apertures", has been a (very) vocal suporter of Low RCS airframes, one of its main (of many) criticisms of the JSF is that DAVE is not stealth enough (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html). Almost the same could be said of Sweetman.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 1st February 2016 at 14:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Trolls will be trolls. Is there anything to see here other than the troll exposing himself (again)?
I don't see this posted on this thread yet, it is of direct interest to the more informed elements of the discussion.
Japan Ready For Next Fighter Engine Core
http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-ready-next-fighter-engine-core
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 1st February 2016 at 15:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:confused: Nowhere does it say that the new fighter should have the F-22 capability (whatever that means..)Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 1st February 2016 at 16:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Price-wise !
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 1st February 2016 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So your saying that the Japanese DO NOT want a high end 5th generation fighter in the class of the F-22? Lets be clear here because im going to make fools out of a few of you lol. You have been trumpeting that stealth is obsolete for years, when dealing with the F-35.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 1st February 2016 at 23:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have no idea what they want.. I have not found a single reference stating the F-3 must have Raptor-like performance.. The fact that they were interested in the F-22 once does not mean they are aiming for the same goal.
We positively know that the F-3 shall primarily be an A-A aircraft, with the possibility of a strike version developed later. But the most important aspect Japan should be interested in is developing their own hi-end military technology to counter regional and global rivals like China and Russia. Better or worse than F-22, that's just buzzwords no one really cares about..
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 2nd February 2016 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But you have the F-35. You dont need 2 fighters LIKE the F-35. The main driving force behind, the X-2 has to do with them being excluded from the F-22 club.
There odviously is a requirment. Perhaps you should write prime minister ABE, and ask for a national defense white paper, clarifying his reasoning behind the X-2. Im sure hell have it by next week.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 2nd February 2016 at 01:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why would I do that? I am not terribly interested in such information, anyway..
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 2nd February 2016 at 11:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F35 is not an air superiority aircraft. It appears to have some air to air capability.
The F3 is apparently intended as an air to air platform in its primary guise.
Repeating over and over that "you have the F35" does not turn said primarily strike focused platform into the type of air to air capable platform that the F3 appears to be intended to be.
I'm not sure that it can be put in much simpler terms for you than that.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 2nd February 2016 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 is an Air Superiority Fighter per NATO definition. What it is likely not is an Air Supremacy (aka Air Dominance) Fighter.
http://armawiki.zumorc.de/files/NATO/AAP-6.pdf
Words mean things
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 2nd February 2016 at 16:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Air Superiority" vs. "Air Supremacy" vs. "Air Dominance" just demonstrates just how much NATO/USAF/LM etc. have in common with condom manufacturers: we have a range of sizes available, all of which are labelled to satisfy your ego and lady friend.
Looking forward to the 6th Gen "Air Annihilation" fighter.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 2nd February 2016 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but no.
Someone cannot claim that fighter X does not meet a specific criteria if they do not know what that criteria is.
That may work when you are talking about an overly general term like fighter generations, but terms like "Air Supremacy" are clear enough.