FedaykinNot necessarily, just because the seat is zero zero does not mean there is significant or even fatal risk firing it whilst stationary on the ground.
Anybody who works with ejection seats will tell you there is significant risk in their use, zero speed and zero altitude ejections are very marginal in respect of how these seats work for safety. If the pilot is not seated properly with their head head and back firmly back against the seat their is significant risk of injury or death. Also there is little time for the chute to deploy or the seat to clear the pilot, the pilot might survive the ejection but die due to the seat landing on him. There maybe hazards around the aircraft that are fatal for the pilot to land on, their spine might of snapped if they were leant over when the seat fired. It is a horrible subject but just because the seat is zero zero does not ensure the survivability of the pilot it just enhances it in certain circumstances.
FedaykinJSR this thread is not about your beloved Mig-35. Somebody purely stated the J-10 is a technology peer to the Mig-35 and F-16C. That is hardly an unreasonable statement albeit fairly generalised especially when considered how much variance there is in F-16C models but you have taken it as a mortal insult to the Mig-35 and started your usual rambling on about unrelated matters. The J-10 design like the F-16 is not best suited to carrier operations, it is difficult to fit a strong enough nose gear under a chin intake. Hence why I am pointing out that criticising the J-10 for lacking a carrier ability is rather silly. You seem to think that having a particular airframe feature like a fuselage hump or an ability to land on a carrier makes it instantly more sophisticated then other types. Ability to land on a carrier is a design decision that will dictate an airframes layout after that a design is no more or less sophisticated.
The Mig-35 is a refresh of what is a 1970′ design, the engines installed in it are a refresh of a design started in the 1960’s. Whilst it is far more capable then a Mig-29A the Mig-35 is still a compromised elderly design. It is nevertheless an interesting and certainly capable type that is a fine example of how Russian aerospace is catching up with the West. The J-10 is a good example of Chinese aerospace has moved on in a very short time, it is a serious threat and a peer rival to many types.
FedaykinLast time I checked JSR the J-10B is not designed or intended for carrier operations so your point is rather mute.
FedaykinAirframes on a Kfir Block 60 are the same age as the Spanish F-1M but they are zero timed allowing an unrestricted flight envelope and service life.
FedaykinThat’s excactly what I meant: Kfir, duck and run.
The Kfir MIGHT be good for country with no serious A2A threat. But then, I don’t really know why ppl are still pushing the jet frwd here.
A chill of nostalgia or her sexiness perhaps ?
It has plenty of bang for your buck if on a budget, the avionics and available weapons package is impressive in comparison to other more modern types.
FedaykinIt has been mentioned that the PAF is interested in the KC-135 at some point. Looking at what is available whilst the first KC-135R has been transferred to Davis Monthan that wouldn’t be my choice if I was the PAF as it is very high hour and intentionally retired because it is at the end of its useful service. A better choice would be some of the KC-135E stored at AMARG instead, a number if which are in Type 1000 storage for possible regeneration into service. Four KC-135E refurbished into R standard with F108 and brung up to Block 40.5 standard or if they wait a bit the latest Block 45 standard which is going to start to role into the USAF fleet this year.
FedaykinMuch cheaper to buy Mirage F1, & support’s no problem. Argentina has the technical capacity to support the aircraft itself, hoovering up stocks of spares & surplus airframes from former users as Pakistan has done with Mirage III/V.
Of course whilst I will be very happy to see Argentina buy a obsolete type like the F-1M which will end up being forced to soldier on for many years without replacement part of me would be interested to see Kfir Block 60 in FAA service just to spice things up a bit and keep the defence planners in Northwood on their toes.
FedaykinThis article on DUFFLEBLOG had me in tears of laughter:
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/11/marines-hymn-heavens-scenes/
Especially this paragraph!
According to St. Peter, God was eventually forced to replace the Marines: first with the Coast Guard, so they would have at least one legitimate mission, but eventually with the Air Force, although Heaven lacks the typical amenities found on most airbases and is considered a hardship tour by most Airmen.
:applause:
FedaykinSo, what are the improvements of the Kfir Block 60 compared to the Kfir-C10 then, does it have an AESA or no, how about weapons and avionics differences? (again i must comment on the poor quality of the promo on the previous page, certain corners were laughing and ridiculing them when the chinese used Top Gun scenes in one of their TV reports, and now IAI Lahav is showing us “MiG-28s” exploding and so on; quite amateurish)
Speaking of which, if FAA is looking at Kfirs, then why not Gripen, new or second hand? Certainly it would be cheaper to run, and can get customized weapon fits for them if they want to (if they want say certain stand-off/ anti-ship weapons).
As I understand it IAI are flexible on what the systems fit is. So you can have an AESA or an M-SCAN ELTA EL/M-2032 depending on your budget. Presumably the AESA would be a variant of the ELTA EL/M-2052.
FedaykinWell I will say again, for years the Argentine airforce has refused to consider second hand jets including Kfir and have turned down a number of offers. The Argentine government has refused to fund new Western jets or second hand M2000 which the FAA are prepared to shift their position on. Finally the Argentine government orders them to start negotiations for a stop gap the F-1M. The FAA then realise that they might well end up with a number of elderly jets that will rapidly move on from being a stop gap, whilst the avionics and weapons fit on the F-1M is comprehensive it is hardly state of the art. All of a sudden the Argentine Air Force have a change of heart over buying the Kfir. They at least have state of the art avionics and a modern weapons fit and whilst based on refurbished airframes they are in an as new condition offering at least twenty to thirty years good service.
FedaykinAs I understand it the Argentine government tried to force the F-1M sale on the FAA. The FAA has resisted buying second hand for years in particular the Kfir, I wonder that being forced on taking elderly and hardly state of the art F-1M they had a change of heart. The Kfir Block 60 is far more potent a beast, it has state of the art avionics and a zero time rebuild. Also compatible with lots of interesting weapons and has a proper BVR capability. Considering the rather fraught nature of Argentine/Spanish relations recently a not entirely surprising development. The Spanish airforce had been keeping some airframes flight worthy and had started some initial work with their counterparts in the FAA.
Kfir Block 60 would certainly be a more interesting thing to consider for the defence planners in the MOD.
FedaykinIf JF-17 was mainly steel it would be unlikely to get off the ground! It is mainly Aluminium with some Titanium and Steel in high stress/temperature areas.
FedaykinThank goodness there is at least one accurate piece of artwork out there depicting the A-Darter on the tip pylons.
The other artwork out there shows the Iris-T, which Brazil does not operate, and hasn’t ordered either.
Derby on the inner Pylon as well is that not?
FedaykinA thorny one that Hopsalot, in many ways CAPTOR is cutting edge yet obsolete in the same breath and a result of the protracted nature of the EF2000 program development.
We need to remember that when the radar was specified for the aircraft the cold war was still in full swing and nobody really saw an end in sight. An M-SCAN was a safer bet at the time to meet the primary requirements of the type. A PESA and AESA whilst considered were regarded as too immature considering the needs of the consortium as a whole, also curiously a fixed array has a few disadvantages in respect of air to air engagements with BVR missiles. CAPTOR is an evolution of Blue Vixen an already highly capable radar and the first optimised for AMRAAM. It should be noted that the Germans were pushing for a variant of the AN/APG-65 and it took a fair amount of wrangling to persuade them on going for ECR-90/CAPTOR.
At the time it was a reasonable decision to stick with an M-SCAN and CAPTOR in many ways is at the cutting edge of what can be done with an M-SCAN to the point that in the way it interleaves modes it rather blurs the line with a PESA/AESA. The priority was re-equipping the partner nations not export and considering that all the primary contemporariness during the development period like the Hornet used an M-SCAN that was the way they went.
Now cut to now and an AESA is needed and with a repositioner solves the problems that made it less desirable in the first place. The current radar meets the primary operational requirements of the type as specified by the consortium an AESA is a desirable development.
FedaykinWow! JSR has actually put forward some relevant and rational points (well except for his fuselage spine fetish)…wonders will never cease:stupid:
Sign In
