Aussies doubt JSF V Flanker Claims

[Contrarian]

I don't mean to make fun of him, but why does he keep typing crap?
No, heat-seeking missiles DO NOT need radars to work. Cmon man, this is common sense. A heat seeking missile has it's own IRST system, it doesn't need a radar to track a target at all.
From Infrared homing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, F-7s do have an IRST device on them. It is sitting inside the nose-cone of their missiles.
Yes, I know no air force uses real missiles in exercises. That means what iceman said is stupid. Your beloved InAF does not know what F-16's missiles can do, so how can it "know F-16 inside out" like iceman said?

Also, I know MKI has a small radar in it's tail. How does it tell the difference between an enemy aircraft and friendly? How large is its search cone? Even if it does detect an incoming heat-seeking missile, so what? The pilot can't turn hard enough to avoid it anyway. Does MKI have a radar underneath it or on top? Or a radar for each side? Nope.

So no sir, I think YOU need to do research before you post. Your friend iceman too.

Lol. Your just as right as the MKI fanboys who think Su-30 will mop F-22's !!

 

[chirag.s]

[/QUOTE]So yes, F-7s do have an IRST device on them. It is sitting inside the nose-cone of their missiles.
Yes, I know no air force uses real missiles in exercises. That means what iceman said is stupid. Your beloved InAF does not know what F-16's missiles can do, so how can it "know F-16 inside out" like iceman said?

Also, I know MKI has a small radar in it's tail. How does it tell the difference between an enemy aircraft and friendly? How large is its search cone? Even if it does detect an incoming heat-seeking missile, so what? The pilot can't turn hard enough to avoid it anyway. Does MKI have a radar underneath it or on top? Or a radar for each side? Nope.

So no sir, I think YOU need to do research before you post. Your friend iceman too. [/QUOTE]

dude just be cool who said iceman is my friend ive never messaged him

I AM NOT QUOTING YOUR REPLY TO SUPPORT ICEMAN

im just pointing at your mistakes

1 i said su-30mki can look behind not shoot down an f-7 from 100 miles away
DO NOT ASSUME SOMETHING I DIDNT SAY:

2 ALL BVR MISSILES NEED RADARS TO LOCATE (not work )THE AIRCRAFT coz infrared seekers are not that powerful u just cannot fire an amraam and hope the missiles seeker finds the target,WHAT ABOUT A BVR HEAT SEEKING MISSILE YOU NEED TO LOCATE THE AIRCRAFT FIRST and AMRAAM is a BVR missile.

AGAIN DO NOT ASSUME SOMETHING I DID NOT SAY

3 IRST DEVICES NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR VISION OF THE TARGET HENCE THEY SIT INSIDE A CLEAR CRYSTAL BALL if it really sits inside the nosecone i must say Chinese are dumb coz whats the use of a INFRARED locater if its vision is blocked .

4 i never said InAF knows f-16 inside out blame it on ICEMAN

5 everybody needs to do some research before they post YOU NEED TO DO IT BETTER THAN THE ONES YOU WANT TO PROVE WRONG AND WHICH YOU ARE NOT DOING

NO OFFENCE BUT U CAN BE BETTER

malaymishra123
Lol. Your just as right as the MKI fanboys who think Su-30 will mop F-22's !!

I JUST LOVE YOUR REPLY YOU ARE TOO COOL DUDE

 

[hj786]

Chirag I proved that a heat-seeking missile does not need a radar to lock onto it's target with this link:
Infrared homing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the pilot or operator points the seeker at the target using radar, a helmet-mounted sight, an optical sight or possibly by pointing the nose of the aircraft or missile launcher directly at the target. Once the seeker sees and recognises the target, it indicates this to the operator who then typically “uncages” the seeker (which is then allowed to follow the target).

Chirag I never said BVR missiles don't need radar. I never said F-7 has IRST in it's nose cone either, you have misunderstood me. Read my posts carefully dude.

Also, if you didn't say something then I was replying to iceman, not you. If you haven't said it, then I was replying to iceman, simple as that. No offence but you can at least use your common sense and figure that out.
You said that no air force exercises with real missiles, I said then how can InAF know F-16 inside out like iceman said? I never said you said it Chirag. I'm not blaming you at all.
I have done my research, you can see it above. It was in my original post too. Why are you saying I need to do more?

I never said you said F-7 can be shot down from 100 miles away either. Where are you getting that from? I know how BVR missiles work, why are you trying to tell me?
Thank you for trying to point out my mistakes, but why don't you point out iceman's mistakes too?

Malaymishra thanks for adding your valuable opinion.

 

[chirag.s]

hey hj768

you are right about me not pointin at icemans mistakes

now abou f-7s or j-7s

"So yes, F-7s do have an IRST device on them. It is sitting inside the nose-cone of their missiles."

are you tellin that f-7s carry missiles as IRST device you gotta be kidding

see the picture

COMPARE THIS TO SU-27 SERIES AND MIG-29 SERIES WHICH HAVE IRST

CAN YOU FIT ALL THE ABOVE DEVICES ON A MISSILE ? NO WAY SO OBVIOUSLY SEEKER ON A MISSILE IS FAR LESS POWERFUL THAN THE ONE ON THE AIRCRAFT

INFRARED SEEKER HEAD ON A MISSILE



are you tellin that f-7s carry missiles as IRST device you gotta be kidding

ANY BELS RINGING ??

or should i ask you like others PROVE THAT F-7s HAVE IRST DEVICE BY PROVIDING SUITABLE WEBSITE LINKS

THIS IS WHAT I SAID

2 ALL BVR MISSILES NEED RADARS TO LOCATE (not work )THE AIRCRAFT coz infrared seekers on missiles are not that powerful u just cannot fire an amraam and hope the missiles seeker finds the target,WHAT ABOUT A BVR HEAT SEEKING MISSILE YOU NEED TO LOCATE THE AIRCRAFT FIRST and AMRAAM is a BVR missile.

SO YOU NEED TO READ MY POSTS CAREFULLY AS WELL

sorry but moving on i asked you to do more research for the above reasons

REPLY SOON

thank you
bye

 

[Contrarian]

I JUST LOVE YOUR REPLY YOU ARE TOO COOL DUDE

Malaymishra thanks for adding your valuable opinion.

Thankyou guys!

 

[hj786]

hey hj768
you are right about me not pointin at icemans mistakes
now abou f-7s or j-7s
"So yes, F-7s do have an IRST device on them. It is sitting inside the nose-cone of their missiles."
are you tellin that f-7s carry missiles as IRST device you gotta be kidding
see the picture
COMPARE THIS TO SU-27 SERIES AND MIG-29 SERIES WHICH HAVE IRST

CAN YOU FIT ALL THE ABOVE DEVICES ON A MISSILE ? NO WAY SO OBVIOUSLY SEEKER ON A MISSILE IS FAR LESS POWERFUL THAN THE ONE ON THE AIRCRAFT
are you tellin that f-7s carry missiles as IRST device you gotta be kidding
ANY BELS RINGING ??
or should i ask you like others PROVE THAT F-7s HAVE IRST DEVICE BY PROVIDING SUITABLE WEBSITE LINKS
THIS IS WHAT I SAID
2 ALL BVR MISSILES NEED RADARS TO LOCATE (not work )THE AIRCRAFT coz infrared seekers on missiles are not that powerful u just cannot fire an amraam and hope the missiles seeker finds the target,WHAT ABOUT A BVR HEAT SEEKING MISSILE YOU NEED TO LOCATE THE AIRCRAFT FIRST and AMRAAM is a BVR missile.
SO YOU NEED TO READ MY POSTS CAREFULLY AS WELL
sorry but moving on i asked you to do more research for the above reasons

NO, YOU NEED TO READ MY POSTS CAREFULLY.

You said this:

4 heat seeking missiles DO need radar to work YOU NEED TO LOCATE THE AIRCRAFT FIRST or else you need to have an IRST device do the f-7s hve such a device on them i am not speaking of pods

I never said F-7s have a IRST that is as powerful as Su-27s, I said their heat-seeking missiles have an IRST which means they don't need radar to shoot down your MKI.
You said you need radar to fire heat-seeking missiles, I proved you don't with a link from wikipedia. You still doubt this fact?
Here are PAF Shenyang F-6 with sidewinders mounted:

PAF F-6 was never equipped with radar. I have just shown they were equipped with AIM-9, which means you don't need a radar to fire heat-seeking missiles. ANY BELLS RINGING?
You are the one who needs to do research Chirag, not me.

I never said BVR missiles don't need radar. I never said F-7 has it's own IRST. Stop typing bullsh*t that I never even said.

 

[Luftwaffe]

sorry guys i am posting this video here i thought might in some way be related to JSF-FLANKERS

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Luftwaffe,

Thankyou for a wonderful video. Great moves. Now lets go to the technical aspects and limitations of a combat aircraft.


People must realize that these videos are for show only---in real combat---the plane will not be close to performing these tasks----why----because of the outboard weaponery----missiles and bombs and fuel tanks hanging outside on hard points would create such a massive CENTRIFUGAL FORCE that the weapons would come tearing apart from the belly of the aircraft---the aircraft frame could twist and bend due the massive forces and could possibly tear the aircraft apart in pieces---SO WHAT IS FOR SHOW---MAYNOT BE FOR DOUGH.

 

[Luftwaffe]

indeed a very good point MasterKhan

 

[qsaark]

Debate in Washington About Real Cost of JSF

Feb 9, 2009, Aviation Week
By Bill Sweetman

A total production rate several times higher than that of recent fighters and a modern design and manufacturing line mean the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will offer more capability for less money than competitors, program officials maintain. Decisions to be taken by the Obama administration, in light of numbers to be released in the next few weeks, will influence to what extent that plan becomes reality.

The U.S. Air Force plans to acquire 1,763 JSFs to replace all its fighters except the F-22. Buying 80 per year to match the retirement rate of older aircraft underpins the program’s economics. Air Force officers warn, however, that the service will need more money to support more than 48 JSFs a year.

The JSF program is concurrent—systems development and demonstration (SDD) and low-rate initial production (LRIP) overlap. This was done to build the production rate gradually and reach 200-plus jets a year immediately after testing. The first of seven planned LRIP batches was ordered in 2007. But since last year’s decision to slip the end of SDD to 2014, that year’s batch has been rebadged as an eighth LRIP buy. One sign of the program’s size is that its “low-rate” phase will build 550 aircraft.

The likelihood of difficulties in the program is the subject of debate. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited a potential 27-month, $13-billion slip last March, based on an independent assessment sought from Naval Air Systems Command. The Pentagon commissioned a Joint Estimating Team (JET), which predicted a two-year slip and $15-billion SDD overrun.
Maj. Gen. Charles Davis speaks at the rollout of the first “weight-optimized” F-35A in 2007.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN

Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, program office director, says JET based its projections on two factors: the F-22 flight-test program’s productivity and technical issues like the F/A-18E/F wing-drop problem. Davis says that some of the F-22’s problems were caused by funding cuts (the budget for spares was reduced early on, hobbling flight tests later), and that better modeling and simulation will reduce the number of test problems.

The JET disagrees with the program office about cost savings from the use of “cousin” parts: components that differ in detail from one JSF variant to another, but are made with the same processes and materials. The program office says they will be 80% cheaper than if they were different; JET says 25% cheaper.

This is important because there are likely to be many cousin parts, given the differences in airframe weight among the three versions. The carrier-based F-35C is expected to have an operating empty weight 5,500 lb. higher than the F-35A. But the 6,500-lb. engine, avionics and cockpit are common, suggesting that the bare airframe is 25% heavier.

The F-35B is 2,700 lb. heavier than the F-35A. Pratt & Whitney’s numbers, however, show that the vertical-lift system adds 4,000 lb., so the B model’s basic structure is lighter than the F-35A’s. Other differences: only the A model has an internal gun bay; the B model incorporates cavities and apertures for the vertical-lift system and has different-sized weapon bays; and B and C are stressed to 7.5g and A to 9g.

One industry source sounds a warning: “The ability to keep those three platforms going, without deviating from commonality, is an extreme challenge. At the parts level, we’re hearing people say they are on the eighth design for JSF and still carrying three different parts forward for the different versions.”

Three documents should provide updated estimates of the actual costs of JSF. The GAO is expected to issue its annual report on the program in March, and the Pentagon will issue Selected Acquisition Reports, which give an official projection of program costs. The FY2010 budget will also show whether USAF believes it can support 80 jets per year. The final answer: “The JET will be totally wrong and the program office will be totally wrong,” Davis says. “The real answer will be somewhere in between.”

 

[HK-47]

The F-22 is a masterpiece.The Americans would rather lose their wives than give the Aussies a squadron of these beauties.

 

[desiman]

So Congratulations to ALL INDIANS here, You got the Best Fighter in the World who can Kill the whole TEEN series of American warplanes and as mentioned above by my Indian Friends Even the F-22 will have some tough Competition if this new Raptor from USA faces Su-30 MKI.

So my dear Indian fellows why don't you just cancel MRCA and Order more 126 Su-30 MKI or Su-35, why to look here and there.

lol the mrca program is just for india to replace its fleet of mig21's. And for your kind information India has ordered 60-70 more MKI's from Russia ( I will post the link soon), so that will take the total number to around 300 or more MKI's in the IAF BY 2015. Just because one aircraft is gud that does not mean that you only use that, having a variety of jets is important as it denies the enemy to have a specific game plan against you.