Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "Curious Droid" channel.

UK doesn't have economic of scale with US level large population size and spending power.
6
US also cancelled their mach 3 projects e.g. XF-108, F-4X and F-12B (SR-71 combat version, reach production stage and was cancelled ). Mach 3 XB-70 bomber was also cancelled. Canadian government killed their own Arrow project after the request for $40 million fund injection. https://youtu.be/t6V8kvI6vrA?t=24 Vought XF8U-3 Super Crusader III, reached mach 2.6 around year 1958... Super Crusader III was also cancelled after the defeat by F-4 Phantom II. Both Super Crusader III and F-4 Phantom II are under USN's program. Super Crusader III has superior gun dogfight capability over F-4 Phantom II while the F-4 Phantom II has superior A2G role over Super Crusader III. F-4 Phantom II wins the interceptor and fighter-bomber dual roles. USN's F-4 Phantom II first flight was in 1958 which is the same year as Arrow Mk1's first flight.
5
@mathewkelly9968 Prove it. 1. Lockheed has X-7 mach 4.3 ramjet demonstrator in 1951. 2. North American company has "A-5 Vigilante" which is first flown in 1958.
4
@firefly4f4 That's nothing to do with Avro Arrow and USAF cancelled it's own mach 3 NAA's XF-108 and XB-70 projects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F-1F_Super_Tiger Grumman F11F--1F Super Tiger was a known casualty NOT Avro Arrow! Archangel 12 project is under CIA's R&D funding which has a different purpose from being interceptor and USAF exploited CIA's A-12 designs for SR-71 and F-12B (completed model for mass production and cancelled). Lockheed chairman of the board Daniel Haughton and vice chairman and president Carl Kotchian resigned from their posts on February 13, 1976.
4
Facts from Lockheed’s codeone magazine https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak. Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. *However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits*. -------- Yak copied the same flawed 3 engine hot cores design from Convair Model 200. F-35 has a single-engine hot core. Yak 141's forward hot air flow degrades the main engine's effective thurst.
4
Both Canada and UK needs higher population size for larger economic of scale. Read http://www.canzukinternational.com/
2
FYI, Royal Australian Air Force also considered the RA-5C (A-5 with slightly greater wing area) Vigilante as a replacement for its English Electric Canberra.
2
F-111C has 2,140 km combat radius while TSR.2 has 1,390 km combat radius.
2
@wilfredocoquioco6828 FYI, F-35B was based on X-35 from Lockheed Fortworth (formerly General Dynamics) while J-20 like design was from Lockheed Skunkworks.
2
vann tedd, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/scary-statistic-chinas-debt-gdp-ratio-reached-257-percent-22824 According to the Bank for International Settlements, China’s debt to GDP ratio reached 257 per cent in 2017, higher than the United States’ 152 per cent
1
F-111 is the superior aircraft over TSR.2 TSR.2's combat radius is shorter than F-35A's 1407 Km combat radius. lol
1
Lockheed still has F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant.
1
Ronald Haworth, TSR.2 has shorter combat radius when compared to F-35A's 1407 km combat radius.F-111's combat radius is superior to TSR.2.
1
When compared to BAC TSR.2, F-111 has better range and low speed handling.
1
The problem with both Canada and UK are the economic strength with each country and could have done better with Canada and UK having a custom union and joint development.
1
Northrop's dream continues into B-21 Raider
1
Avro Canada has requested $40 million dollars cash injection which Canadian government promptly cancelled it. Don't blame the US for your budget problems
1
@weasle2904 Japan is also buying F-35B
1
Yak 41 copied the same flawed 3 engine hot cores design from Convair Model 200 design. F--35 has a single-engine hot core. Yak 141's forward hot air flow degrades the main engine's effective thurst.
1
If you read http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666042.pdf at page 25 shows the breakdown for $916.3 billion (JPO) or 1020 billion (CAPE) estimate $916.3 / 56 years = $16.36 billion per year. $1020.3 / 56 years = $18.21 billion per year. F-35's 1 Trillion price tag is over 56 years and +1700 unit fleet. ----- https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320 "The Air Force requested $10.3 billion for 70 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft" for FY 2018. $916.3 / 56 years = $16.36 billion per year. $1020.3 / 56 years = $18.21 billion per year. 1700 units / 70 unit based on YF2018 = 24 requests. Actual $10.3 billion x 24 request = $242 billion.
1
EVIL GUNNEY, I have already read source DOD reports and they are work in progress reports.
1
EVIL GUNNEY, I already posted in counter arguments in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Z_DuF87Sc LOL. Basic Wing loading without body and vortex lift. F-35A Empty weight: 28,999 lb (Year 2015). Wing area: 460 ft² Wing loading: 63.04 lbs/ sq feet F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet Tiny wings? F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's 43000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28600 lbf. There's a near straight scaling between F16C to F-35A. From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16 The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. F-35A's main target goal is to replace current service F-16C. Apples to apples comparison based on F-16C's 550 Km combat radius F-35A (Year 2015 build). Set Combat Radius 550 km F-35A has 1407 Km combat radius Empty weight: 28,999 lb Wing Area: 460 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 7230.916844 lb Fuel load based on F-16C's 550Km combat radius Combat load: 38,230 lb Wing loading 83.11 lbs/ sq feet Thurst MIL 28000 lbf Thrust WET 43000 lbf Power-to-Weight: 1.12 :1 F-16C Block 52 Combat Radius 550 km Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing Area: 300 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 7000 lb Combat load: 27,900 lb Wing loading 93.00 lbs/ sq feet Thrust MIL 17,800 Thrust WET 28,500 lbf Power-to-Weight: 1.02 :1 F-35A remains Power-to-Weight and Wing loading competitive against F-16C Block 52 up to about 800 Km combat radius. F-35A's 1407 Km combat radius is for combat transit range e.g. use Japan islands unsinkable aircraft carrier with more than enough range to strike at North Korea. ------ With body lift area. https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A?t=1038 F-14 designer (former Northrop Grumman VP Mike Ciminera) with body lift argument debunks Pierre Sprey's wing loading and wing size arguments. Most 4th gen fighters has body lift designs. https://s1.postimg.org/6xbltu4rj/Capture.png F-35A's real wing load i.e. colored green to blue are the lift surfaces. F-35A's real wing load i.e. colored green to blue are the lift surfaces. F-35's engine cowling generates lift that rivals wing lift hence easily duplicating F-18's long LEX or forward fix canards functions. Cant'ed twin tail adds additional rear lift. The oversize rear horizontal stabilizers has some lift and it's responsible for nose pitch (nose pointing). F-35A's effective lift area is about 620 sq ft. I have loaded F-35A's lift area into a CAD program and it yielded about 620 sq ft lift area with green-blue colored lift areas, minus horizontal stabilizers. With max 18,498 lb fuel load, F-35A has 75 lbs/ sq feet. With empty load, F-35A has 46 lbs/ sq feet. The real F-16 designer http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37 F-16 Designer Harry Hillaker Harry Hillaker's statement on low wing loading and wing size... We knew that we wanted low wing loading and high thrust loading. But we also knew that low wing loading means more weight and more drag Sprey's argument on wing loading and anti-small wings are not compete. Larger wings introduces higher drag . The trick with F-16's design is have medium wing loading, smallish wings and lower wing load during angle of attack turn with vortex lift. F-16 has blended wing design to get more lift from the body.
1
FYI, Lockheed owns Convair Model 200 designs by purchasing General Dynamics’ tactical military aircraft division and has purchased Yak 41M’s flight data. Yak 141 vs F-35B according to Lockheed http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak. Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits . -------
1
F-111 was the superior fighter bomber e.g. longer range and better slow speed handling.
1
Ben Cook Australians wanted a fighter-bomber with longer range and it's UK's own problem to fund their TSR.2 project. When compared to UK, US has a larger economy with larger population size to sustained multiple fighter program and it can soak up cost overruns better than UK or Canada. F-111 has superior climb rate over TSR.2. F-111 has superior range over TSR.2.
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111C Beyond its cost, the Royal Air Force had not ordered the TSR-2; the Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Louis Mountbatten, who opposed it, advised the Australians against buying the aircraft and the RAAF feared being the only customer.[20][27] UK Defence Staff Lord Louis Mountbatten was against TSR.2.
1
Lockheed didn't design B-2.
1
@Юрий Тойкичев Convair Model 200 lost to Rockwell XFV-12. Rockwell failed to deliver and the United States Marine Corps had adopted the Harrier II. Rockwell XFV-12 has a single hot core engine while Convair Model 200 has three hot core engines.
1
@binaway Yak41 copied the same design flaws as the Convair Model 200
1
NSA BUM "Supersonic speeds could cause big problems for the F-35′s stealth coating" is NOT applicable for F-35A Block 3F. US Navy has a different environment when compared to USAF's
1
NSA BUM FALSE, F-15A was dumped into the junkyard for accelerated airframe fatigue problems, hence F-15C. F-15's high angle of attack test resulted in two crashes. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/2.2174?journalCode=ja Old F-15's high angle of attack test resulted in two crashes and subsequent disabled high angle of attack feature. https://youtu.be/KaK_uSeCJgg?t=56 Advance F-15 has a high angle of attack upgrades due to digital fly-by-wire upgrades. It took many years for F-15's high angle of attack to be fixed.
1
NSA BUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3b-b762QRY Super Hornet's high angle of attack with minimum turn radius advantage holding its own against F-15's high energy turn rate advantage dogfight example. Original source (non-English) http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/suomella-vahvat-ilmavoimat-mutta-kuinka-kauan/ Frisian Flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish F-18Cs gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish) Finland's F-18C has 16:1 kill ratio against EuroCanards and F-16s http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/ More F-16 vs F-35A from Norwegian pilot. I quote Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo
1
@wilfredocoquioco6828 Read https://gizmodo.com/the-history-behind-the-f-35b-vertical-lift-from-napkin-382151 Dr. Paul Bevilaqua is the aerodynamicist who designed the F-35B shaft-driven lift fan years ago at Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin's advanced technology program.
1
@wilfredocoquioco6828 https://web.archive.org/web/20190216063414/http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_cddr_mda-ngc-bae.htm UK joins the Harrier team of McDonnell Douglas / British Aerospace / Northrop Grumman's JASF concept. The Harrier team + Northrop Grumman for JAST program has a gas-driven forward lift fan solution. Lockheed has the shaft driven forward lift fan solution.
1
NSA BUM FYI, USAF has fleets of F-16A and F-15A models in the junkyard.
1
@НикитаЛель-г8ы Since Lockheed Martin has taken over General Dynamics's Tactical Military Aircraft business read http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0236.shtml Notice General Dynamics has proto-YF-16 model with dual side engine intakes, single-engine and dual angled tail with horizontal stabs extending beyond engine nozzle design. Both F-35 and proto-YF-16 with dual side intakes have blended body design which is different upper wing mounted design on the Yak 141 F-35 has upper bias blended wing design which is different from upper wing mount design Yak 141 or MiG 25/31 which are similar to North American(Rockwell)'s A-5 Vigilante
1
@НикитаЛель-г8ы FYI, Lockheed has been working on Diamond delta-shaped wings since 1950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_X-7#/media/File:X-7a-3_Recovery.jpg Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_X-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_X-7#/media/File:X-7a_Lockheed.jpg Lockheed's Diamond delta-shaped wings since the 1950s. Diamond delta-shaped wings design re-appeared with Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer. CL-1200 Lancer was a competitor to YF-16
1
NSA BUM FALSE.
1
NSA BUM F-35A Block 3F was designed to replace F-16C Block 50/52. The Air Force awarded a nearly $1.2 billion contract to Boeing for its first lot of eight F-15EX fighter aircraft on July 13, 2020. Notice only eight F-15EX units. The real replacement for F-15C is 6th gen fighter. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/09/usaf-jet/168479/ US Air Force Has Secretly Built and Flown a New Fighter Jet.
1
NSA BUM https://www.142fw.ang.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2315152/oregon-air-national-guard-to-receive-f-15ex-fighter-jets/ US National Guard to receive F-15EX.
1
NSA BUM Your narrative is false. YAK COPIED THE SAME DESIGNED FLAW AS CONVAIR MODEL 200! Facts from Lockheed’s codeone magazine https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance. ---- USA patent 1967 https://www.google.com/patents/US3429509 ---- Facts from Lockheed’s codeone magazine http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak. Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. *However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits*. ------ YAK copied the same flawed two forward hot engine cores design from Convair Model 200. F--35 has shaft-driven cool air stream forward lift fan. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch10-4.htm During F-14 design phase, look at Figure 10. 11, notice NASA's concept design in regards to the engine and horizontal tail design and F-35's tail design. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/p256.jpg The above picture is one of many F-14 study models which is before Yak 141. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780008057.pdf https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/File:L-74-2684.jpg Notice NASA's LFAX-8 concept design in regards to the engine and horizontal tail design which reappeared with F-35 The above picture is one of many F-15 study models which is before Yak 141. Since Lockheed Martin has taken over General Dynamics's Tactical Military Aircraft business Read http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0236.shtml General Dynamics has proto-YF-16 model with dual side engine intakes, single engine and dual angled tail with horizontal stabs extending beyond engine nozzle design. Both F-35 and proto-YF-16 with dual side intakes has blended body design which is different upper wing mounted design on the Yak 141 Using F-16's blended wing design, F-35 has upper bias blended wing design which is different from upper wing mounted design Yak 141 or MiG 25/31 which are similar to North American (Rockwell)'s A-5 Vigilante . I have Lockheed Martin's official viewpoint against YAK 41 copied fake news. YAK DID NOT SOLVE THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH CONVAIR MODEL 200 i.e. forward hot air stream being ingested by the main engine which reduces engine thrust! Copying the same flaws as CONVAIR MODEL 200 shows your brained dead copying.
1
NSA BUM Basic wing loading via empty weight without factoring forward/rear body and vortex lift factors. Yak 141 Empty weight: 25,683 lb Wing area: 341 ft^2. Wing loading: 75.32 lbs/ sq feet. F-35A Empty weight: 28,999 lb (Year 2015). Wing area: 460 ft² Wing loading: 63.04 lbs/ sq feet. F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet. F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's 43000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28600 lbf. There's a near straight 1.5X scaling between F16C to F-35A on basic wing loading, engine thrust, and empty weight. F-35A's wing area and empty weight wing loading target are influenced by F-35A's weight growth and F-16C Block 50/52's empty weight wing loading F-35A's basic design parameters are based on F-16C Block 50/52 with 1.5X scaling!
1
@НикитаЛель-г8ы That's BS, Harrier was the mass successful production STOVL fighter aircraft which includes mitigation against hot air being ingested by the main engine.
1
@НикитаЛель-г8ы The statement "And it was these materials that were developed at the Yakovlev Design Bureau and the documentation on the production and flight tests was transferred to Lothit Martin" is bullshit. PROVE IT dickhead .
1
@НикитаЛель-г8ы Facts from Lockheed’s CodeOne magazine https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. *The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees*. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance. Facts from Lockheed’s CodeOne magazine http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137 _A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program_. _The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work_. _In fact, the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak_. _Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits . _ Deal with it. YAK did NOT solve hot air being ingested by the main engine.
1
F-104 was designed for interceptor role not for ground strike role..
1
Avro Canada requested $40 million dollars cash injection which Canadian government promptly cancelled it. Don't blame the US for your budget problems.
1
TSR.2 doesn't have F-111's range. TSR.2's 1,390 km combat radius was shorter than F-35A's 1407 Km combat radius LOL. Arrow Mk1's combat radius is about 660 Km which short legged like F-16C's 550 km combat radius.
1