French planes are crap

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability to
**fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter was
there's to write from day one.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is
thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability to
**fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter was
there's to write from day one.


Sorry - are you talking FCS software here?

"Ian Craig" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad
Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much
less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is
thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability
to
**fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter
was
there's to write from day one.


Sorry - are you talking FCS software here?

I misspelled their's, so sorry.

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way. They took
a long time getting to initial designs, but ti's those designs you have
to compare. The Eurofighter is pretty much the same design (plus some
avionics and materials changes) as the late-1970s initial requirement.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Chad Irby
writes

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way.

One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
program being one example).

They took
a long time getting to initial designs, but ti's those designs you have
to compare. The Eurofighter is pretty much the same design (plus some
avionics and materials changes) as the late-1970s initial requirement.

Sorry, but that last is no more true than that the F-22 that enters
service is just a productionised YF-22.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way.

One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
program being one example).

But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
program being one example).

But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

Would that it were so simple. "Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely
results in a FOD hazard: how do you shield the compressor blades?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

Would that it were so simple.

Actually, it was. A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
radar return went away. Look at some cross sections of the plane, and
note where the airflow goes to get to the engine.

"Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely results in a FOD hazard: how
do you shield the compressor blades?

By using the normal turns in the intake. As for the FOD hazard: it
shouldn't exist, if you fasten everything correctly, and no more so than
normal aircraft structure.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

Would that it were so simple.

Actually, it was.

I'll take the designers opinion on the issue, thanks.

A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
radar return went away.

After reshaping the intake, sure.
"Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely results in a FOD hazard: how
do you shield the compressor blades?

By using the normal turns in the intake.

Those "normal turns" didn't figure in the design baseline and were a
1990s addition.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk