dark light

TR1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 7,216 through 7,230 (of 9,195 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2371663
    TR1
    Participant

    Mig29k only carries 500kg level bomb while Su33 can carry up to 1500kg level bomb. At least brahmos can only be carried by Su33 level fighter, do you agree?

    That is not true at all. MiG-29K can carry heavier bombs, not to mention good luck taking off, especially with any sort of usable fuel load of the Kuz on a Su-33 ladden with KAB-1500s. Su-33 has never carried Brahmos or anything that big off a carrier, so moot point.

    As for the rest of your figures, I am not even going to ask where you pulled them out of.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372215
    TR1
    Participant

    Yeah some of the comments are gold. Shocking, too, considering it is youtube…

    The sight of it hovering there is very strange, gotta say I expected more dust upkick.

    On a random note:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS83TySok5I&feature=related
    I didn’t even know this thing actually flew.

    in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2372231
    TR1
    Participant

    Jane’s reported long ago the J11B has structural difference from Su27SK which resulting in 800kgs weight saving.

    Supposedly. However, just by replacing Soviet era electronics you would get significant savings, so the figure is not as impressive as it may initially be seen.

    Look at the J15, it features wide-angle holographic HUD, more ECM arrangements, WS-10 engines, most likely an electronically scanned FCR, FBW.

    And none of that is a fundamental enough difference to call it something innovative over the Su-33. People can make these claims about how fundamentally different they are on the inside, but that is deflection, not to mention speculative deflection.

    Everything different except the appearance. It’s sad a good platform like Su33 is being killed in its homeland,

    Or maybe, after operational experience, the homeland decided it was not perfect for the role…

    well, I personally like bigger is better, this is especially true when it comes to the shipborne role.
    Could not disagree more.

    Ten chars.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372257
    TR1
    Participant

    Sure, but its lift capacity is still not anywhere near the Mi-26s.

    Much smaller helo, which is why I don’t get how they can even compete.

    Also, the Chinooks in those photos look a lot more stripped than the one in the Mi-26 video ;).

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372276
    TR1
    Participant

    On the subject:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF5pqwFFik4

    Never seen this vid before.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372280
    TR1
    Participant

    Well that is stupid then. Mi-26 is pointless choice for most troop insertion, CSAR, that kind of thing….but nothing comes close at heavy lift.

    This competition makes no sense if they try to combine all those roles.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2372393
    TR1
    Participant

    What!?

    No picture of that FC-1 with 2xC802 on the tarmac in chengdu yet?!

    the forum’s standards has fallen.

    Actually, if you look at the last page πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2372431
    TR1
    Participant

    Those Su-30s look awful MiG-29 like πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2372433
    TR1
    Participant

    it is not imposibile at all,and now are versions far more advence than it,but china is not able even to reach those ’80 al-31 parameters isnt it ??

    It is quite possible that they have reached those parameters.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2372438
    TR1
    Participant

    chinese ws-10 is better than al-31 :rolleyes:.come on man,everyone knows the unreability of chinese engines,their short life,and ofter mainteinens.the problem is not their unability to built them in large number but are the reasons that i just explained.judging of your words china can built faster a fighter than its engines:rolleyes:

    It is not implausible, al-31 is from the 80s after all.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2372477
    TR1
    Participant

    Are the dimensions that different from the Al-31? Sukhoi has had no problem re-fitting “vanilla” Su-27 with more powerful Al-31FM1s for example, although that only applies to a certain point (Su-35 has slightly larger 117S).

    in reply to: Rafale news part XI #2372499
    TR1
    Participant

    Nice vid, but no 1080p πŸ™ .

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372568
    TR1
    Participant

    Well, it comes down to, does India want a superior heavy lift helo, or a larger troop transport than what it already has.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372578
    TR1
    Participant

    Mi-17 has no problem in mountains. Weird about Hangar times, RuAF hasn’t had such issues with its Mi-26s. Oc you can expect more hangar time from such a larger helo.

    Keep in mind Mi-26T2 is an improved machine.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372586
    TR1
    Participant

    According to Boeing….nice ;).

    India has plenty of other helos for troop insertion. If it wants a dedicated heavy helo, I honestly don’t see much of a competition here. I find it strange the two are pitted against each other.

Viewing 15 posts - 7,216 through 7,230 (of 9,195 total)