Gentlemen, Russian first fifth-generation aircraft PAK-FA FLEW!!!

Meh. Patent shmatent.

What a lot of people forget is that patenting something isn't a simply "let's patent the crap out of everything" affair. Once a patent expires, the knowledge contained within the patent becomes public knowledge. What this means is that anyone can produce the exact same product, no-one can prohibit someone else from producing it the exact same way.

F. ex. Coca Cola never patented its recipe for its cola. Otherwise they could only profit from their (self-proclaimed) ultimate formula for a limited period of time. Instead, they decided to take the other road, and continue to be the only ones pumping out their unique flavor today.

In any case, the duration of a patent varies. Ballpark figure was in the range of 20 years I think.

-Z

 

So awesome!

 

It does vary, but said 20 years is more than enough for many inventions (generally speaking) to become outdated. Also, google LEGO on the subject of the method of interconnecting pieces.

 

To me this says "F-22" (most strongly in the wing-intake-nose & tail-in-wing TE geometry), but we've seen how it can look like different aircraft from different angles:

 

T-50: A Preliminary Analysis
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/29/2010 10:07 AM CST

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

That PAK things looks great, but to me the coolest looking plane ever built is still the YF-23 (followed by the Su-27).

 

before that e-155 quite shocked americans.
after that actual parameters were quite challenging.
in 1991 mig-25 performed several attacks, though not so successful, but absolutely uncatchable itself.

 

PAk-FA rate of climb = 1184 feet per SECOND

Sonar-: Fuck Fuck Fuck!! reduce speed!

 

I dunno excactly how it works. But I read this somewhere, and heard it too, more than once. A process is granted copy right or a exclusive patent. A process is the procedure of putting the pieces together so they make a whole Thing. It isn't the same as the ingredients in the thing, which are, um, ingredients. Coca Cola ingredients are well known. You can see them on the container, in most contries, and they are called Ingredients. The process of making Coca Cola is the patented or copy-rghted [?] document, exclusive cop ritghts for one person or entity, Coca Cola Inc.
The recipe is protected by soldiers. Yes. Soldiers. You and I cannot find a written copy of the recipe, too many troops in a cordon around it, [called a perimiter in soldier lingo] . That is a copy-righted document. In the end, it means that coca cola's technology remains a secret regardless for over a hundred years............. Pft:copyright/patent Law.
One Law company Sleeping with another and making it hard for me to make a coca cola in my kitchen. Making it impossible. So, what was that about a patent running out after 20 years? Interconnected. Yes. Incestious, yes.

 

Coca Cola's recipe/process (what is a recipe? list of ingredients + how to combine them to obtain a final product? it is a process then) is not patented, unless you can provide me with linkies to sources stating otherwise. No patent is indefinite. You can restrict a trademark and prolong the restriction period, but not patents for inventions or technological processes.
This is the exact reason why CC has not patented it's recipe as Z stated. To obtain a patent it is a requirement that you describe your invention/process in full detail, and those documents are made public after the patent expires, thus making it available to everyone. By just plainly and simply keeping it a secret, they can be the only ones to know, indefinitely.

 

That F-35 is gonna be such a letdown. The incarnation of the saying: "Jack of all trades, master of none". It will be stealth, but only if it carries a uselessly small payload to the front-line. It will be STOVL only if it carries nothing more than the pilot and a few short range AAM's. It will be a ground pounder, only if it isn't stealth. It won't be able to make short turns, because for that, the design should've been optimized towards maneuverability rather than stealth.

Really.

Useless and pointless.

-Z

 

Zembla, I hope you reconsider your opinion in light of these facts:

It's true the F-35 is significantly smaller than the F-22, both in size and weight (looking at loaded weights the F-35 can be as much as 9,000 kg lighter than the F-22).

However, in spite of this:

-in terms of internal fuel capacity (of huge importance for stealth designs), the F-35A has slightly more than the F-22 (18,500 lb vs 18,000 lb)
-regarding air-to-air, the F-22 has the edge vs the F-35 in weapons carriage (2x AIM-9 + 6x AIM-120 vs 4x AIM-120)
-however in ground attack, while both the F-22 and F-35 can carry 2x AIM-120, the F-35 can also carry 2x 2000 lb class weapons where the F-22 can carry only 2x 1000 lb weapons (the F-35's bays are better suited to bombs, the F-22's for missiles)
-the F-35 will have the missile-cuing helmet before the F-22, meaning an F-35 pilot will be able to fire missiles over his shoulder (I guess the F-22's BVR superiority makes its WVR upgrades a lesser priority)

Check out this pic of the F-35's bays.

It's true that some compromises had to be made for the Marine version, but it will probably be good enough for what they need it for.

The bottom line is that weapons like the SDB mean that a precision 250 lb bomb can do as much damage as a 2000 pounder from a generation ago, making it easy to underestimate the F-35's ground pounding capability. The limits of an internal weapons bay are also a blessing in disguise. You can compare a clean F-35 to a clean Eurofighter if you are really desperate to score points for the latter, but once you load both with weapons the F-35's internal carriage scores major points in the performance department. We'll probably see that with the PAK-FA as well: powerful engines and internal bays will mean significant improvements over the already-good Su-3X series.

 

I agree, the F-35 was going to be a compromise right from the get-go, and as such it is neither pointless nor useless. Seeing as it's pretty clear that the U.S. isn't going to get 2,000 F-22s to replace every aging F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc. with a cutting-edge, cream of the cream super fighter of the first rate, they either had to make do with something less capable but AFFORDABLE or just stagnate. A fleet of 200 F-22s and a few hundred 5th gen. F-35s may not be what enthusiasts originally envisioned, but it sure beats a fleet of 200 F-22s and a few thousand 4th gen. birds suffering from airframe fatigue.

 

nm

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-130210-1.html

 

Very very doubtful.

It needs to be if it wants to be the supersonic stealthy Harrier it was set out to become.

Obviously, if you're going to bomb a place, far away, you're not going to want to rely on tanker airplanes that much. Unlike when you're going to be doing a CAP patrol for a few hours, in the vicinity of a tanker.

That's because the F-22 was designed with one goal in mind, it's not a jack of all trades, it's a thoroughbred fighterplane.

One is a multirole fighter, the other was designed to replace the F-15, and as such was conceived to be purely a fighter jet.

Has nothing less to do with the plane as to do with tests trials and system implementation.

It's very existance is a compromise.

All you did was say why the F-35 compares this or that way to the F-22. Until it can actually show some credible combat / test performance, I'll still believe it's a jack of all trades, master of none.

-Z