Vault

Naa, they'll be the kind that matter to sales. They always are. Money talks.

I'm not calling him a liar. He fails to mention thrust to drag ratios though. ;) physics dicates they're going to be alot higher than a clean F-16 because that big bird sure does displace alot of air compared to the F-16. He doesn't mention the UK version with externals added onto it. He fails to mention wing loading and turn performance and he's a company man with alot to lose. Infact he doesn't really mention much except thust to weight ratio. Not very convincing and he's definitely picked his words and parameters carefully.

F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. Under what parameters were those assesments made?.

Will it?. The UK's JSF wth external's is questionable in aerodynamic performance even against an F-16. That JSF is one big bird for a single engine fighter. Would love to see the performance charts. It has a much higher displacement. ;) The JSF will be used by the carrier force to protect itself from A2A threats, infact it's more probable that the JSF will encounter A2A than the Typhoon. If there's a war on the other side of the world the JSF will be there first. I thought the Typhoon's mainstay medium long range A2A will be the meteor when brought into service?. Still a prototype but a very potential adversary, especially an export version. It's rumoured to of been designed to counter the JSF and not the F-22.

There's nearly a trillion reasons why here http://www.debtbombshell.com/ Combat effectiveness against other 5th gen airframes like the PAK-FA... Price per unit... Questionable performance...

The book is good a read. Thanks. Whilst it's very informative I believe that modern NCTR systems have new technology and techniques that have evolved far beyond public knowledge and published books. But that's just specualtion. Ultimatley it doesn't matter, Six of one a half dozen of the other.

Air displacement. Higher pressures caused by the bigger airframe which result in more drag. Smoother profiles are more aerodynamic than angular one last time I checked.

In my country to work on these systems you need to be DV cleared. You can't apply for DV clearance, you're invited to be DV cleared by the goverment. Not even the pilots know how these systems work on a technical level, they just know they work and what buttons to press. I'm always highly sceptical when anyone claims to know how they work. By covering up the turbine blades NCTR and RCS reduction go hand in hand. For 5th gen aircraft what you say is true but not for legacy 4th gen.

The UK F-35's internal weapons can only be launched from a trapeze whilst the ASRAAM can only be launched from a rail. It's the US trying to force us to purchase the 9X. We're buying a VLO multirole that even Lockheed admit that if it has anything hanging on it, it isn't VLO. It's almost comical. So not only do we have a multirole that has been aerodynamically compormised for the benefits of VLO, we also have no VLO. This is one of the reason's I've always been against the UK purchasing it. It's been compromised before it's even gone into service.

I can't answer that because I don't know the in's and out's of how NCTR works. I've read that NCTR uses the front and rear exhaust blade profiles for identification, I'd be speculating if I said anymore than that.

It's called non co-operative target recognition (NCTR) which can be used as a basic form of IFF. NCTR is the main reason why engineers prefer to hide the blades.

Are the UK still planning to carry ASRAAM's on external pylons on the JSF? or did they scrap that idea?.

Hey Groove are those Trex 450/500 yours?. I'm currently rebuilding my Trex 600CF after an epic crash.

F-15E shot down due to mechanical failure?. Wonder if it was the same type of "mechanical failure" that downed that F-16CG in Serbia?.

To the original OP. You'd be better going to an overclockers forum for advice on a gaming system.

What part of you have to use all five cores for it to be cost effective do you completely fail to understand?. How many gamers use 5 cores?. If you intend on running multiple CPU intensive applications in the background whilst gaming sure 5 cores is king. But if you're just gaming 2 cores is ample the other three are just sitting there doing nothing but wasting electricity and generating heat. Do you tell people how to cut down trees?.

Those world record results are on liquid gas cooled systems lol. Seriously link to the whole article when posting graphs. Now go and check C2D vs i5 OVERALL power consumption. :smartass: Ether I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Anyone can see when they buy and build a like for like C2D or i5+ 3.3 ghz gaming system it's more expensive. REMEMBER ANY CPU IS ONLY AT THEIR MOST COST EFFICIENT IF YOUR UTILISING ALL THE CORES. Do you work for Intel?.

I do. It's my GPU. :(

Sorry if I misunderstood but it looked like you was stating your system specs. Seriously I'll read in futre, if you stop posting other peoples specs that you cannot verify. I already knew that. Just a guess here but does the most CPU intensive side of DCS runs on just 1 core?. Wrong it's 45nm. According to the users on OCUK I've got the best version of 8600 for OC'ing and if there advice is correct I will get between 4.3 and 4.5 GHZ. Wrong again!. Give it up!. An i5 has three more cores and it WILL use more electricity and generate more heat. Core for core an i5 uses less electricity but because it has 3 more cores than a duo an i5 will use more electricity! do you understand?. It's all school boy stuff. I thought you would have known that. Were talking CPU's not PSU's lol. A nasty PSU will always waste more electricity than a good quality PSU and your point is?. Then don't. It's what Ive been told and I beleive it, you don't have too. Theoretically the more heat thats generated and the more power that is pulled should put a higher stress on components. OK I'll read better when you explain yourself better and actually have an understanding of what you're posting.

Like I said, like for like, i core systems are more expensive to build and more expensive to run. That's a FACT. Unless you mulitask 3+ CPU intensive applications whilst in game an i core system is an expensive waste, over the course of the CPU's life I wonder how much you actually waste in electricity. $450+?. I've also been told that the extra heat that is generated by i core systems degrade mainboard components quicker. Oh rly? How many cores does DCS.exe use again?. So the i5 CPU-Z screenshot you posted below isn't your system? Do you even have an i core based system?.

Lol your CPU is £50 more than mine, what's that in US about $70-80?. Your DDR3 memory is more than likely treble the cost of mine and my CPU will still keep up with yours lol. You got ripped off clean. It's simple. More cores = more electricity. Less cores = cheaper fuel bills and less heat issues. For gaming you only need two cores, it really is as simple as that.

Etherreal the fact remains with a big fan are CPU's will be very similar in clock speeds. We will run any game or program as fast as each others. Now go and price up a custom built i core system. It's alot more expensive. Considering DCS can only utilise one core you have cores wasting electricity and generating heat.... for nothing, unless you are multi tasking CPU intensive applications whilst in game.

It's just a standard E6800. My chassis fan doesn't reach my mainboard so I know I can go a bit higher when I fix that issue, I'm gonna add a huge fan and heatsink soon so I expect to see 4.3-4.5 GHZ reliably. :)

Your £130 CPU versus my £80 CPU, cheaper fuel bills, less heat issues. You got ripped off. Unlike yours I'm on a stock Intel fan and there's more to go. Can't wait till I get big fan. :)

I'm reitterating the words of dedicated overclockers. Yes i cores can hit 4GHZ but it takes specialist knowledge and a very expensive cooling set up to reach 4GHZ. Your fuel bills increase on overclockinging an i core, one user estimated the extra running cost of oc'ing an i core at $150 a year in electricity. The general consensus from the overclockers was for just gaming a duo-core is king. Go on overclockers and check the records for duo, quad and i cores. I can run my CPU reliably at 4GHZ on air. Show me an i core or quad that can do that.