On Sep 20, 3:50Â am, "David E. Powell"
msn.com>
wrote:> On Sep 18, 7:30Â am, true.blue.bl...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:25:57 -0700 (PDT), true.blue.bl...@
gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> - assess the aircraft based on its inherent capabilities and cost:
>>>>the F35 is a dog, and the Su35 eats it for breakfast. We could buy 3
>>>>Su35s for the price of 1 F35.
>
>>> The reality is that the F35 would eat the Su35 *before* breakfast.
>>> The Su-35 has breakfast in close, but the F35 gets it BVR.
>
>> The stealthy, but virtually unarmed, F35 can detect all it likes, the
>> fact is the Su35 can rip it to shreds and has done so in simulations.
>
> I'd like to know the data on the close fighting data. F-35 will have
> vectoring, I am guessing? (I know Su-35 is sweet in close, I am not
> doubting that. But I haven't seen this data.)
You said 'data' three times in one sentence, without taking a breath.
Stop it.
>
> If the "virtually unarmed" F-35 can go undetected and detect the Su-35
> before the Su-35 knows it is there, it only needs one missile fired
> from the internal bays to win the fight. The Su-35 can have a bunch of
> missiles on her wings, but if she gets hit by suprise she may go down
> without firing them.
And one of my toenails might turn into a magic fairy and grant me
three wishes.... But I don't think so.
All off this supposed batmobile capabilities of the proposed F-35
is really amusing. The only 'stealth' stealth platforms have, is
when no-one is actively looking for them. Stealth dissapears
down the toilet if everything lights up. And it will in the grown up
comic books. Then you had better have a good reason for staying
in the Air. The Yanks think they have that with the F-22. I tend to
agree.
It's a nice bit of work. However, the Su-30MKI, JL-XX, Su-35,
are all in the area or getting bloody close. You know the good
thing about the Su-27 shape? It's big. And what can you fit into
a big nose? Lots of active ECW/M.
Mark Addinall.
