Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter

This is a discussion on PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Haavarla And gf0012-aust. Judging by the visual performance of this prototype it looks like it would fall ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 5.00 average.
Old June 21st, 2010   #871
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,485
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
And gf0012-aust.
Judging by the visual performance of this prototype it looks like it would
fall into the catagory of:
'quite a bird'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df7aJ...eature=related
visual performance is not an indication of capability.

need I remind you of how the Cobra/Kobra manouvre was touted as an indication of platform capability?

manouvre means squat when the AAM enters your NEZ and can still turn at 35G whilst the best the pilot can do before he blacks out is 11G (assuming that he's wearing a modern SAAB/American/UK type G suit)

Most platforms have frame stress alerts squawking at 7G and prev gen G suits start to lose effectiveness at 9G.

tech analysis is about science and engineering limits - not emotion and what "looks good"
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old June 21st, 2010   #872
Senior Member
Major
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,026
Threads:
Quote:
gf0012-aust;198668]visual performance is not an indication of capability.

need I remind you of how the Cobra/Kobra manouvre was touted as an indication of platform capability?
No you don't have to,
I know the Cobra and other manuvers done in airshows don't pass as an operative fighter capability.
Certainly not in BVR.
But with the help of a clock, one can visual measure to some extent the Take-off length, climb rate and continuing sustained AoA turn(360) and how it compair in T/W ratio.
These figure does have an impact on a aircraft performance.

Quote:
manouvre means squat when the AAM enters your NEZ and can still turn at 35G whilst the best the pilot can do before he blacks out is 11G (assuming that he's wearing a modern SAAB/American/UK type G suit)
Yes agreed.
But again loiter time on station, speed and weapons load is also part of fighter performance.


Quote:
tech analysis is about science and engineering limits - not emotion and what "looks good"
Nothing wrong with at bit entusiasm here, as long one can see the different.
So why can't it be both.
The back-swept wing design, sleek beauty chined lines, small canted stabz, movable LERX and blended wing/body design of the T-50 have everything to do with high lift, reducing drag, reducing RCS and maintaining superb overall aircraft performance...

Its both a beauty and a exceptional aircraft design with exceptional kenetic performance.
And its something we can observe when looking at demonstration vids.

Tech specs like RCS, internal weapons stores, weapon specs, radar, network, sensor-fusion and engines specs are of course more important, but we dont have much to go about yet, so i don't bother discussing it now.



Thanks

Last edited by Haavarla; June 22nd, 2010 at 04:56 PM.
Haavarla is offline  
Old June 21st, 2010   #873
Senior Member
Major
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,026
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
Would I be right in assuming that the Russian requirements would be aimed at the Chinese and former USSR Member states rather then Western European and US new generation systems?

Which would mean that the PAK-FA would be designed around beating the equipment it is replacing rather then beating the F-22 or F-35?

I don't think the RuAF next generation fighter requirements springs out from what the Chinese and former USSR Member states are fielding to day or in the future.

The RuAF requirements evolve around the fact that they need a new fighter with new capabilities.
I don't think the RuAF 5 gen requirements aim at beating the F-22 in all aspect.
Don't pay attention to politician spoksmen like Putin and Co.
They don't have any clue, just using the media for what its worth.

If you pay more attention to what Mr. Pogo says, he does not mention the F-22 as a direct adversery.
But interesting enough he state it is a 5th gen fighter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzdnrk92eU&feature=related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL56LFklax8&feature=related
If the Russian and US 5th gen requirements are different so be it.
US might claim it doesn't forfill all the requirements for a 5th gen fighter.
Whose right i'm not sure..
Doesn't really matter, its all part of manufactors advertizing their product..

But i believe the T-50 comes with more bang for the bucks than anything we seen before.



Thanks

Last edited by Haavarla; June 22nd, 2010 at 04:59 PM.
Haavarla is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2010   #874
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,485
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
But with the help of a clock, one can visual measure to some extent the Take-off length, climb rate and continuing sustained AoA turn(360) and how it compair in T/W ratio.
These figure does have an impact on a aircraft performance.
are you serious?

was it full military power?
when did afterburners kick in?
was it dummied with a combat load?
was the pilot tasked to lift off at certain runway points to test engine strain and loading events?
was it carrying a full fuel load?

etc etc...

you cannot even remotely start to make claims about any platforms performance without knowing what the load out config was and what the intended profile was. simple things like AoA have a whole new meaning when the aircraft is on combat load and fully fueled up etc....

I'm sure that you've been on other forums where kids think that performance is defined by max mach, that supersonic cruise missiles are better than subsonic cruise missiles etc etc.... in isolation it's meaningless. or the classic is the number of kids who stated that the inlet movable FOD blockers were actually RAM coated signal deflectors. (not the FOD ejectors, the FOD blockers). All those "experts" re the RAM coated inlets obviously don't know much about the history and development of FOD management

OTOH, you can start to identify design intent when you see fixed IRST, linear intakes, FOD ejectors etc....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2010   #875
Senior Member
Major
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,026
Threads:
Quote:
gf0012-aust;198803]are you serious?

was it full military power?
when did afterburners kick in?
was it dummied with a combat load?
was the pilot tasked to lift off at certain runway points to test engine strain and loading events?
was it carrying a full fuel load?

etc etc...
You know as well as i do, when fighter aircraft doing Demonstrations for airshow or VIP persons(potensial customer).
At 90% cases, they use very little fuel, no external/internal weapons(legasy aircraft or not).
One time the F-22A did, but in any case it was flashing its weapons bay for the crowd to see.
Weapons and Dummies can be recongnized from afar(external)..
They usuall get up in a hurry, easy to spot.. just count the runways markers

Just by looking on vids, you can easly see/hear if the AB are used or not.
Actually beeing on an airshow.. well you get the picture.

By this you can actually compair aircraft performance like avrage sustained AoA(360), take-off lenght etc etc cause different fighter aircraft pretty much abide by the same parameters.
Namly Low fuel, no weapons etc etc.

And yes i'm dead serious.
When i'm not i'll let you know in advance.

Quote:
you cannot even remotely start to make claims about any platforms performance without knowing what the load out config was and what the intended profile was. simple things like AoA have a whole new meaning when the aircraft is on combat load and fully fueled up etc....
Yes i can, its not that hard.
There will allways be some hidden profiles, obvious i can't know the excact amount of fuel.
But Fuel weight hampers performance, so no point in taking off with a normal take-off weight is it?

Quote:
I'm sure that you've been on other forums where kids think that performance is defined by max mach, that supersonic cruise missiles are better than subsonic cruise missiles etc etc.... in isolation it's meaningless. or the classic is the number of kids who stated that the inlet movable FOD blockers were actually RAM coated signal deflectors. (not the FOD ejectors, the FOD blockers). All those "experts" re the RAM coated inlets obviously don't know much about the history and development of FOD management
I'm not sure what to respond here..
I don't care what 'Kids on youtube or elsewhere claims .
I'm not drawing my knowledge from 'kids'.. so why the remark

Quote:
OTOH, you can start to identify design intent when you see fixed IRST, linear intakes, FOD ejectors etc....
I'm not sure if this T-50 has any FOD screens that resembles the Flanker series or if it has some sort of adjusteble spoiler to improve the engines high-speed performance.

The movable LERX has nothing to do with aiding the airflow of the engines, only as control surface.
One can clearly see how the Movable LERX supplementing the other control surfaces when doing high-alpha turns seen on the pics bellow.

There seems to be some sort of device inside to air-intake, which can be lowered..
I'll see if i can find the pic again.

Let me just serve you folks a little something from Pilot strizhi.info:
Did i say it look like a beauty
I must say it looks hotter and more different to other fighter aircraft as more pics keep coming in.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg img0888pf.jpg (24.4 KB, 29 views)
File Type: jpg img0892pf.jpg (25.8 KB, 30 views)
File Type: jpg img0908pfs.jpg (24.3 KB, 30 views)
File Type: jpg img0909pf.jpg (23.1 KB, 30 views)

Last edited by Haavarla; June 24th, 2010 at 12:15 PM.
Haavarla is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2010   #876
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,485
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
You know as well as i do, when fighter aircraft doing Demonstrations for airshow or VIP persons(potensial customer).
At 90% cases, they use very little fuel, no external/internal weapons(legasy aircraft or not).
One time the F-22A did, but in any case it was flashing its weapons bay for the crowd to see.
Weapons and Dummies can be recongnized from afar(external)..
They usuall get up in a hurry, easy to spot.. just count the runways markers
be serious. this is not amateur hour - you obviously get the point, you just don't like hearing it. you do realise that my comments included rhetorical points?

its good to know that we have no idea that it had a dummy load (internal) becasue we can't see it (naturally)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
Just by looking on vids, you can easly see/hear if the AB are used or not.
Actually beeing on an airshow.. well you get the picture.
CREF above/ of course you can tell if AB are on - but you're not getting the intent of the message

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
By this you can actually compair aircraft performance like avrage sustained AoA(360), take-off lenght etc etc cause different fighter aircraft pretty much abide by the same condidions.
Namly Low fuel, no weapons etc etc.

And yes i'm dead serious.
When i'm not i'll let you know in advance.
no, I'm not sure you are serious, you're jousting because you want the plane to be held in respect when nothing has been shown to earn it yet,. nice plane, but zero info yet. don't make it something it isn't. and yes, I know you like russian kit, but you can still try to be professional in your assessments even though you're taking it personally.

you can be as sarcastic as you like, and you can even complain about me again, but it still doesn't alter the fact that its debate content and technical issues being discussed here - and in a proper robust technical manner. when you get serious then I'll change my approach. respect is earnt - not given, engage in considered debate and it will commence - up until then I'll continue to point out the obvious even though you make claims to understanding the very issues that I raise.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post

Yes i can, its not that hard.
There will allways be some hidden profiles, obvious i can't know the excact amount of fuel.
But Fuel weight hampers performance, so no point in taking off with a normal take-off weight is it?
it's not that hard - and yet you don't seem to gte the intent behind my comments...
eg the onboard fuel effected this performance how? do you know what others don't yet?
what weight differences etc were involved againts known parameters... you just can't compare its take off against other aircraft and videos. thats abject nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
I'm not sure what to respond here..
I don't care what 'Kids on youtube or elsewhere claims .
I'm not drawing my knowledge from 'kids'.. so why the remark
you appear to be taking it personally again when its an academic discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
I'm not sure if this T-50 has any FOD screens that resembles the Flanker series or if it has some sort of adjusteble spoiler to improve the engines high-speed performance.
what do you think the screens on the bottom are? what do you think the inlet baffles are? they're not s bend ram coated baffles -as some of the youtube experts have tried to promote (I use youtube because the technical debate on those videos is less than stellar and far from professional input - ie a polarising perspective to add discussion measurement)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
The movable LERX has nothing to do with aiding the airflow of the engines, only as control surface.
One can clearly see how the Movable LERX supplementing the other control surfaces when doing high-alpha turns seen on the pics bellow.
when did a FOD rack and an S bend FOD baffle become a LERX? I'm not sure what engineering manual would even remotely think that a LERX is even remotely close to the baffles and racks

you don't need photos to understand this. its engineering 101 - even a non engineer with a basic comprehension of design history of modern jets would know this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
There seems to be some sort of device inside to air-intake, which can be lowered..
I'll see if i can find the pic again.
I know what S bend baffles look like, I know what FOD baffles look like. feel free to find them for your own edification, but I don't actually need additional photos to get qualification on my comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
Let me just serve you folks a little something from Pilot strizhi.info:
Did i say it look like a beauty
I must say it looks hotter and more different to other fighter aircraft as more pics keep coming in.
yes its a lovely looking jet performing for the audience. its the rubber and road issues that I'm interested in - not how it churns and burns for a crowd.

again, if you don't like my technical debate and feel a need to engage in technical merits issues, I'm more than happy yo have you PM me. It seems to me that you're more interested in having a public defence of the plane that you like rather than listen to technical issues - esp if you perceive them as slights against the air show antics that are supposed to represent tactical capability
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

Last edited by gf0012-aust; June 23rd, 2010 at 05:51 PM.
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old June 24th, 2010   #877
Senior Member
Major
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,026
Threads:
gf0012-aust;198820]
Quote:
be serious. this is not amateur hour - you obviously get the point, you just don't like hearing it. you do realise that my comments included rhetorical points?
I don't see why you continuing with rhetorical points, yet you it seems to expect an answer..
When i answer you, this is what i get.
pls try to be more specific about what i don't like hearing
And stop generalize eveything i'v said.
pls Show your fellow posters some respect, or you will get non in return


Quote:
Quote:
CREF above/ of course you can tell if AB are on - but you're not getting the intent of the message
was it full military power?
when did afterburners kick in?
was it dummied with a combat load?
was the pilot tasked to lift off at certain runway points to test engine strain and loading events?
was it carrying a full fuel load?

etc etc...
Now you lost me..
What is your message here?

Quote:
no, I'm not sure you are serious, you're jousting because you want the plane to be held in respect when nothing has been shown to earn it yet,. nice plane, but zero info yet. don't make it something it isn't. and yes, I know you like russian kit, but you can still try to be professional in your assessments even though you're taking it personally.
No i'm not making this prototype into something its not..
Pls show me where i did just that?
Zero info is not excactly true is it?
Sukhoi has shared some info on engines(current engine).
If the first batch will feature the IRBIS radar.
Then we have atleast some idea of what to expect from this radar.
It is not certain the first operational Pak-Fa will get any AESA radars.
We have to wait and see how the Russian AESA radar development progress.

I'm not sure what other info you expect anytime soon regarding this prototype.
LM didn't put out much info on the YF-22/F-22 when they still where on the development stage.
And still its much we still don't know.
So if you expect other posters on this forum to only post reveled info on the T-50, this thread will not see much news..

If its against this forum rules to post some pics or vids from aircraft without sharing specs that is impossible to come by, just say so.


Quote:
you can be as sarcastic as you like, and you can even complain about me again, but it still doesn't alter the fact that its debate content and technical issues being discussed here - and in a proper robust technical manner. when you get serious then I'll change my approach. respect is earnt - not given, engage in considered debate and it will commence - up until then I'll continue to point out the obvious even though you make claims to understanding the very issues that I raise.
With all due respect mr, your first reply was nothing but sarcastic.
It contain several uncalled remarks, and i stand by my complain.
Isn't a fellow member on this forum allowed to complain if he feel a reason for it.?

Why cant you PM me instead regarding my complain about you, and not discuss it here on the open, it doesn't seem fair since you beeing a Moderator on this forum..


Quote:
it's not that hard - and yet you don't seem to gte the intent behind my comments...
eg the onboard fuel effected this performance how?
do you know what others don't yet?
what weight differences etc were involved againts known parameters... you just can't compare its take off against other aircraft and videos. thats abject nonsense.
I was talking about aircraft on air shows in particular.
They use wery little internal fuel, do you dispute that?
Infact so little fuel they can't fly off to other airports, only to cover the planned flight time.



Quote:
you appear to be taking it personally again when its an academic discussion.
That is your point of view, not mine..



Quote:
what do you think the screens on the bottom are? what do you think the inlet baffles are? they're not s bend ram coated baffles -as some of the youtube experts have tried to promote (I use youtube because the technical debate on those videos is less than stellar and far from professional input - ie a polarising perspective to add discussion measurement)
The screens at the bottom are for optimizing the airflow to the engines.
If you use youtube as a perspective measurments thats your choice, but i don't see the revelence to this debate.


Quote:
when did a FOD rack and an S bend FOD baffle become a LERX? I'm not sure what engineering manual would even remotely think that a LERX is even remotely close to the baffles and racks.
I was only pointing out that some folks have speculated that those movable LERX could be used to shield the farward compressor fan.
My point is that its not.

Quote:
again, if you don't like my technical debate and feel a need to engage in technical merits issues, I'm more than happy yo have you PM me. It seems to me that you're more interested in having a public defence of the plane that you like rather than listen to technical issues - esp if you perceive them as slights against the air show antics that are supposed to represent tactical capability.
How can i defend something that we know so little about?
Have i compaired it vs any other aircraft? No.
To show some entusiasm is not the same as beeing nationalistic or biased.

And pls keep in mind there are other posters on this forum.
Perhaps they enjoy some of my post, that beeing vids or pics.
In the future i might post some more clip or pics.

If i have a question, i will ask about it.
If i want to debate tactical capability, i'll do so out of my own leisure.
Again, airshow and tactic is not the same thing. I have not claimed so eighter.
I was only stating that it is possible to measure different performance between different aircraft.
I'm talking about kenetick performance.
Not BVR capability etc etc.



Thanks
Haavarla is offline  
Old June 25th, 2010   #878
Super Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,456
Threads:
Give it a rest please, Haarvala. This whole thing started because GF made a comment about "class B runways" which you misunderstood, and considering your own posts I don't know why you're acting the innocent victim here. I don't ask that you agree with me or like what I have to say, but I do ask that you please stop, because this is going nowhere.
Bonza is offline  
Old June 26th, 2010   #879
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 57
Threads:
hello haavarla here are some pictures for you
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1549989087cd.jpg (258.7 KB, 37 views)
File Type: jpg 7c105e3fe582.jpg (33.4 KB, 34 views)

Last edited by gf0012-aust; June 27th, 2010 at 01:43 AM. Reason: when quoting other posts its normal to comment against them
MiG-23MLD is offline  
Old June 27th, 2010   #880
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonza View Post
Give it a rest please, Haarvala. This whole thing started because GF made a comment about "class B runways" which you misunderstood, and considering your own posts I don't know why you're acting the innocent victim here. I don't ask that you agree with me or like what I have to say, but I do ask that you please stop, because this is going nowhere.

Just to make it clear, in NATO/US terms class a or b runways are used to identify, how heavy aircraft a runway can take. For example will only small light jets be able to land on a class a runway. This has to do with the basic structur, lenght etc, and the navigation aides available...

both the F-22 and Pak-Fa will mainly use class b runways

Last edited by Sarkozy; June 27th, 2010 at 05:52 AM.
Sarkozy is offline  
Old June 27th, 2010   #881
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,485
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkozy View Post
Just to make it clear, in NATO/US terms class a or b runways are used to identify, how heavy aircraft a runway can take. For example will only small light jets be able to land on a class a runway. This has to do with the basic structur, lenght etc, and the navigation aides available...
It's also about the condition of that runway - not only what can use it. ie its not just about platform preparedness.

the issue of what navigation and ATC facilities determines the status of the base - not the runway...

eg barebones can deal with a flight of aircraft for emergency or short notice ops, they then require "nn" days to come up to speed as the extra gear is freighted in.

they are basic turn key - the status of the runway has nothing tio do with the status of the base. eg Shergold is a bare bones base that is Class A.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old July 1st, 2010   #882
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 57
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
No you don't have to,
I know the Cobra and other manuvers done in airshows don't pass as an operative fighter capability.
Certainly not in BVR.
But with the help of a clock, one can visual measure to some extent the Take-off length, climb rate and continuing sustained AoA turn(360) and how it compair in T/W ratio.
These figure does have an impact on a aircraft performance.



Yes agreed.
But again loiter time on station, speed and weapons load is also part of fighter performance.




Nothing wrong with at bit entusiasm here, as long one can see the different.
So why can't it be both.
The back-swept wing design, sleek beauty chined lines, small canted stabz, movable LERX and blended wing/body design of the T-50 have everything to do with high lift, reducing drag, reducing RCS and maintaining superb overall aircraft performance...

Its both a beauty and a exceptional aircraft design with exceptional kenetic performance.
And its something we can observe when looking at demonstration vids.

Tech specs like RCS, internal weapons stores, weapon specs, radar, network, sensor-fusion and engines specs are of course more important, but we dont have much to go about yet, so i don't bother discussing it now.



Thanks
The cobra is a good indicator of post stall handling, an aircraft doing it shows it can do other post stall maneouvres, in fact it is the first requirement to have post stall maneouvrability.,in BVR combat is meaningless but at WVR combat the cobra has some significance, in terms of operational use it has a niche in close combat, that is reason the F-22 can do it.
Post stall agility only has merits when it is used properly. beyond that it can become a disadvantage. but it is not useless in operational service.
MiG-23MLD is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010   #883
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3
Threads:
Re: Russian 5th Generation Fighter !

USA sell JSF(flying tin) nearly 200 million dolar and dont share to source code for other partners....And everytıme Pentagon may follow thıs airplane from planet and remote control...
I dont want Turkei get thıs airplane...PAKFA more great airplane than JSF and ım sure russia share source code and technology for Turkei

You have reported a post by "Aussie Digger" 3 times, with the same crap"reason" you posted here. Do not abuse the Report Post" feature again or be face a 2 week ban.
arrrow is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010   #884
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,829
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrrow View Post
.And everytıme Pentagon may follow thıs airplane from planet and remote control...

Got any proof for that claim? You have until 07 July to back up that post or you'll be banned for 2 weeks.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline  
Old July 5th, 2010   #885
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post

Got any proof for that claim? You have until 07 July to back up that post or you'll be banned for 2 weeks.
Quote:
U.S. to withhold F-35 fighter software code
Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:29pm EST

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will keep to itself sensitive software code that controls Lockheed Martin Corp's new radar-evading F-35 fighter jet despite requests from partner countries, a senior Pentagon program official said.

Access to the technology had been publicly sought by Britain, which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it were unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without U.S. involvement.

No other country is getting the so-called source code, the key to the plane's electronic brains, Jon Schreiber, who heads the program's international affairs, told Reuters in an interview Monday.

"That includes everybody," he said, acknowledging this was not overly popular among the eight that have co-financed F-35 development -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AO01F20091125

now I don't really know about the source-code. last thing is certainly not said in the case of the F-35.
Sarkozy is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 AM.