South Korea abandons consideration of stealth fighter development

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

SlowMan 7/30/2009 2:25:48 PM

@ Rufus

> It takes time and money to integrate weapons.

And that time and money increases exponentially when you got around half a dozen to integrate. Or a dozen for customers with heavy weapons R&D programs.

> Israeli weapons on the other hand, already use similar interfaces and hardware. Those would be much easier to integrate and will almost certainly be integrated in short order, despite your idiotic claims to the contrary.

What about Japanese and Korean weapons???

> it is most certainly NOT ROBERT GATES.

Robert Gates said that behind closed door because saying that was the very purpose of his trip!

> You lied

Absolutely not. You denied the fact stated in a published report to support your false claim.

> This is why nobody takes fanboys seriously.

That's why I don't take you seriously.

> Oh really? Like the one you lied about, claiming Robert Gates said something he didn't?

Robert Gates said that. Making that statement was the very purpose of his trip!!!

> You can't even quote him accurately but you want us to take your word for it that you know what his agenda is?

Gates' agenda was already discussed and agreed before his trip.

> I didn't call it a lie.

Yes you did.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/30/2009 3:18:19 PM

"And that time and money increases exponentially when you got around half a dozen to integrate. Or a dozen for customers with heavy weapons R&D programs."

Of course not idiot, where do you get these ideas? Why would the relationship be non-linear? It takes time and effort to integrate each one, but each subsequent weapon doesn't require more effort than the last. If anything the process becomes quicker and easier as engineers become more familiar with the technology. Only the earliest adopters need have any concern about their weapons being integrated.

What about Japanese and Korean weapons???

Those shouldn't be a problem either as those weapons are currently already integrated onto US planes for the most part. It will depend on the specific weapon, but provided interfaces and physical connections are similar...

Robert Gates said that behind closed door because saying that was the very purpose of his trip!

Ah, back to the lying I see. Want to scurry off and find a quote? Oops... you already tried that and the best you could come up with was someone OTHER than Robert Gates saying something completely different from what you claimed he did.

Absolutely not. You denied the fact stated in a published report to support your false claim.

Ok, kid, you claimed Robert Gates said otherwise... a lie... if you are going to claim a public figure made a claim, it is your responsibility to prove the claim.

"Robert Gates said that. Making that statement was the very purpose of his trip!!!"

Source fanboy? You know, one that actually supports you statement this time...

Gates' agenda was already discussed and agreed before his trip.

Already discussed... lol By who? Some fanboy on a message board.

You claimed Robert Gates SAID that was why he was going. Prove it or retract it fanboy.

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/30/2009 3:37:55 PM

@ Rufus

> Those shouldn't be a problem either

Actually there is a problem. This is why Koreans are ripping out US avoinics from their F-16 fleets and putting in their own, so that they could use their own weapons.

> as those weapons are currently already integrated onto US planes for the most part.

Japanese have fewer problem because their weapons inventory is restricted to a few A2A and A2S missiles, in accordance with article 9 of Japanese constitution that prohibits ownership of "offensive" weapons. Koreans on the other hand face a major headache as their inventory includes a variety of indigenous stand-off guided bombs, anti-tank and cruise missiles that Japanese don't have, in addition to next-generation A2A and A2S missiles incompatible with American system. When you have that many to integrate, it's cheaper and simplier to rip out original US avionics and put your own in.

This is why F-35 was a non-starter with Korean DoD, because of the reality of weapons operability problems. F-35 simply doesn't meet Japanese performance requirement either.

> you claimed Robert Gates said

Of course he said that a few days ago.

> it is your responsibility to prove the claim.

The proof is in the press report.

> Source?

You already had it.

> You claimed Robert Gates SAID that was why he was going.

I said Robert Gates said to say what he made the very trip to say, the US position on the terms of Israeli F-35 purchase.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/30/2009 5:19:57 PM

"Of course he said that a few days ago. "

So I take it your strategy here is just to keep lying and lying and lying huh?

Find me the quote fanboy, go fetch!

The proof is in the press report.

Yeah, the one that said nothing of the sort. Nice proof.

Actually, that report actually said that South Korea is going to pass a law that every Tuesday is naked Tuesday. It will be illegal to wear clothes in S Korea on those days!

Check the report you linked to, it is in there.

LOL

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/31/2009 6:23:36 AM

@ Herald12345

> exceed Mach 1 clean at MIL power.

And says who, you?

Yes. Apparently you can't read?

> Source.

But your source says F-16 cannot supercruise. Is this some kind of joke here?

Exceeds Mach 1.1. Yep. you cannot read.

> And what exactly did I say?

You claimed F-35 could supercruise faster than a Typhoon with certified Mach 1.2 supercruise.

I said that F-35 would do better. I also gave the CORRECT speed of the Typhoon at its best fuel fraction and optimum alititude in air intercept at MIL power. Whereas you made up the numbers and then had to change them. Which is it? Mach 1.,5 or Mach 1.2 that you claim? Want to tell me what number you claim this week?

> but LEARN that I am careful with what I say.

You are not in a position to teach anyone with your flawed and limited knowledge.

Apparently I AM. CREF above.

As to limited knowledge, you haven't shown me even the basics that you understand about reaction engines.

Herald

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/31/2009 10:02:45 AM

@ Rufus

> So I take it your strategy here is just to keep lying and lying and lying huh?

No, mine is to tell the fact, fact, and more fact.

> Yeah, the one that said nothing of the sort.

Sure it did. That was the very reason Gates made his trip to Israel.

@ Herald12345

> Yes. Apparently you can't read?

And who are you to rewrite the law of physics?

> I said that F-35 would do better.

Which proves beyond doubt you don't understand the subject of technical requirement for supercruising.

> Which is it? Mach 1.,5 or Mach 1.2 that you claim?

Mach 1.5 is the maximum achieved to date. Mach 1.2 is the certified cruising speed in the spec.

> Want to tell me what number you claim this week?

Mach 1.2 certified, Mach 1.5 maximum achieved in flight. This number will not change until Typhoon goes faster.

> As to limited knowledge, you haven't shown me even the basics that you understand about reaction engines.

At least mine is better than yours.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/31/2009 11:13:46 AM

"Sure it did. That was the very reason Gates made his trip to Israel."

LOL

Too bad you can't actually produce a source for that...

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/31/2009 11:31:10 AM

@ Rufus

> Too bad you can't actually produce a source for that...

If you thought Robert Gates made his Israeli trip to talk about the Israeli settlement construction and the middle eastern peace process, I am sorry to tell you your delusional mindset is confusing Robert Gates with Hillary Clinton..

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Source it, kid. 7/31/2009 6:18:30 PM

@ Rufus

> So I take it your strategy here is just to keep lying and lying and lying huh?

No, mine is to tell the fact, fact, and more fact.

> Yeah, the one that said nothing of the sort.

Sure it did. That was the very reason Gates made his trip to Israel.

@ Herald12345

> Yes. Apparently you can't read?

And who are you to rewrite the law of physics?

I don't. I just know that thermodynamics doesn't work the way you think, kid.

> I said that F-35 would do better.

Which proves beyond doubt you don't understand the subject of technical requirement for supercruising.

> Which is it? Mach 1.,5 or Mach 1.2 that you claim?

Mach 1.5 is the maximum achieved to date. Mach 1.2 is the certified cruising speed in the spec.

Under what conditions? Is it USABLE performance or even factual what you claim? We have proof now that you stretch the truth a great deal, kid.

> Want to tell me what number you claim this week?

Mach 1.2 certified, Mach 1.5 maximum achieved in flight. This number will not change until Typhoon goes faster.

The usuable Mach number is more like 1.165 at best altitude. That number changes with fuel fraction, payload, and altitude kid. Just how ignorant are you? (DRAG and MASS, kid)

> As to limited knowledge, you haven't shown me even the basics that you understand about reaction engines.

At least mine is better than yours.

CREF above and below. Apparently not.

Four influences, drag, lift, gravity, thrust. They all combine to determine final best speed and altitude through the air. Gravity is fairly constant. Jet engines can be throttled, temoerature varied in the kernel, or the exhaust choked down to vary thrust, and the plane gets lighter as it dumps load or burns fuel. Drag can be varied by heading into thinner air, but then you rob yourself of lift asnd have to move faster to maintain pressure differential over the wings.

Lot of variables that are never constant, kid. Maybe you should quit before I really show you how ignorant you truly are.

Herald

Look un the mirror, kid. You don't

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/31/2009 9:51:57 PM

@ Herald12345

> I don't. I just know that thermodynamics doesn't work the way you think, kid.

Well, good luck writing your own law of physics. You will be remembered along with the likes of Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking by the future generation. The great physicst who discovered how to defy Newton's Second Law of Motion and ushered the era of everyday supercruising with Boeing 747s. I look forward to that day.

> Under what conditions?

Four AMRAAMs.

> Is it USABLE performance

Yes, for air-superiority role.

> DRAG

Typhoon is "clean" with four AMRAAMs. It is in this four semi-submerged AMRAAM configuration in which Typhoon's RCS and performance claims are made.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT