IRIS-T, according to that webpage, isn’t fully integrated until Tranche 2. And RAF EF-2000s for the moment appear to be carrying AIM-9s if they’re operational aircraft. In fact the only aircraft I can think of that actively employ the ASRAAM operationally are the RAAF Hornets (and maybe RAF Tornados?).
here is the page that says the IRIS-T has became operational
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRHeft06/FRH0602/FR0602d.htm
source of pictures http://www.eurofighter.com/News/Article/default.asp?NewsItemId=226
With supercruise ASRAAMs and IRIS-T the Eurofighter is a excellent fighter
Here is the J-10 carring lot of fuel 
In the armament arena as well. Bring up Meteor all you want, but right now, with AMRAAM and AIM-9M, there is no big capability advantage in terms of A/A weapons in favor of the Eurofighter over a J-10 armed with PL-8 and PL-12.
At this moment the Eurofighter is armed with ASRAAM and AMRAAM, also with supercruise speed has advantages in BVR combat, in wvr combat it has the ASRAAM and IRIS-T both have became operational
Here you can watch the Eurofighter and the Panavia Tornado
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUHI6w87y3c&search=eurofighter
Source http://defence-data.com/eft/eftpage45.htm
Hmmm … just a question ! What does this ongoing discussion on US naval aviation have to to with the topic ???
“F-10 compared to EF and Rafale?” :confused: :confused: :confused:
Cheers, Deino
I guess has to do with the fact basicly the J-10 is`nt in the Eurofighter class and still the F-18E/F can deal with it armed with AIM-9X, but of course many people think the F-18 is not as good as the F-14, they think the F-18E can not defeat the J-10.
here is the weapon that has made the F-18E/F an aircraft that can fight J-10s watch the nice video of AIM-9X fired by F-18s and F-15s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBpzuDRt0A&search=sidewinder
While the J-10 is a 4 generation fighter it is not a fighter that will surpass easily other aircraft such as the F-18E or the more advanced Eurofighter.
The Gripen armed with Meteors and ASRAAM or IRIS-T still is quit ahead, the question is many still think fights are win only by pure agility, the reality that was in 1945 but in 2006 agile missiles and stealth something the F-18E/F have, make the best machine
[QUOTE=Levsha]
What is that supposed to mean?
What exactly was the Tu-22M trying to be and was it a success or failure?
If there were indeed some failings in the design of the F-111 (some people in Vietnam, Libya and Iraq might disagree), how do you explain the Soviet Union bringing into service the Su-24: an aircraft with a remarkably similar layout, appearance and mission profile to the F-111.
Was the Su-24 a success or failure?
Personally i do not think the Tu-22M is better than the F-111, niether there are aircraft without shortcomings, any aircraft is surpassed by new and more modern designs.
The F-111 of course had some design features that were excellent, some world firsts, it had a moderately successful carreer, and to my point of view has been one of the most influential designs of the 20th century.
The Tu-22M also is an aircraft that no one can claim has been a failure in overall terms.
It has been produced in large numbers, has good performance, politically and militarily did it`s work as a deterrement tool and can be considered as one of the most sophisticated aircraft built by the USSR.
Both aircraft have different niches and roles, the F-111 can not fill the role the Tu-22M had but it does not mean it is a failure simply it means it was designed with different goals in mind.
The Tu-22M is an aircraft that fills a role between the B-1B and the F-111.
Some F-111 variants were envisioned that supposed to get the F-111 close to the Tu-22M role but this was not built, the FB-111H was a variant never built but with some performance and capabilities closer to the Tu-22M.
from http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/VG/US-VG.htm
We can not regard the F-111 as a failure in the terms of strategic bomber because the Tu-22M also can not be compared to the B-1B.
The Tu-22M can be seen as a Tu-16 replacement and in this it was a success, the F-111 served well as a tactical bomber but as a fighter was a failure, it never attained the Su-27 versatility, but any way as a tactical bomber and trend setter was a success.
source
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm
Yes, East German MiG-23BN were referred to as MiG-24BN. This was derived from the 32-24 bureau designator (as Flogger explained), and done more or less to separate the odd-numbered fighters (MiG-21, -23, -29) from the even-numbered bombers (Su-22, MiG-24). Obviously they ignored the Su-7 in that respect, but hey, they never claimed to be consistent.
This is very interesting, few days ago i was reading a book about the proposed MiG-23 variants that never were built.
First of all, i have to admit i was wrong when i argued with you and airsande plus about the MiG-23 HMS, i was wrong the MiG-23MLD never operated HMS, however some MiG-23MLD subvariants such as the MiG-23MLDG or MiG-23MLS indeed were fitted with HMS but these never entered series production.
Very likely only the Angolan MiG-23ML upgraded in Ukraine to MiG-23-98 standards have HMS but that still is a mystery to me i do not know if it has been confirmed
There were other MiG-23 variants worthed to talk about, the MiG-23A, MiG-23MD and MiG-23K, the MiG-23A and MiG-23K never entered production or were ever built, but were supposed to be powered by two R-33 or a single newer R-100 engine or even a single R-69F engine, these naval variants were to be fitted with air refueling probes, twin ventral fins and arresting hook besides having better visibility, the MiG-23A were to be built in three subvariants the MiG-23AI (interceptor/fighter), MiG-23AB (attack) and the MiG-23AR (recoinnassance).
The MiG-23A was basicly a navalized multirole MiG-23ML
The MiG-23MD was basicly a MiG-23M with the radar of the MiG-23MLA.
there were also an attack version powered by a Al-21 named MiG-23TS/МиГ-23Ш
It is interesting the R-33 was considered as a powerplant for the naval MiG-23 because the MiG-23K and MiG-23A were to be powered by two engines not one in some configuration models these interesting because some MiG-25s and MiG-31 aerodynamic models were also powered by two engines and VG wings, however the MiG-23K and MiG-23A were to be light versions of those models
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig/31/mp/img/e155mp.jpg
here are some MiG-25 and MiG-31 models with VG wings
here is an article in russian
На базе МиГ-23МЛ был разработан вариант МиГ-23А – проект многоцелевого корабельного самолета с двигателем Р29-300 в вариантах истребителя, штурмовика-бомбардировщика и разведчика на базе проектировавшегося истребителя МиГ-23МЛ для базирования на авианесущих кораблях проекта 1160 с катапультным взлетом и аэрофинишерной посадкой. От прототипа отличался опущенной вниз для улучшения обзора из кабины носовой частью фюзеляжа, усиленным шасси, установкой посадочного гака (поворотный подфюзеляжный гребень при этом заменялся на два гребня), увеличенной площадью и высотой киля. Разработан в 1972 г., в связи с отказом от строительства кораблей проекта 1160 реализован не был. Так же был разработан самолет МиГ-23К (32-31) – корабельный истребитель на базе проекта самолета МиГ-23МЛ с двухконтурным двигателем Р-100 (23-15) для базирования на авианесущих кораблях проекта 1153 с катапультным взлетом и аэрофинишерной посадкой. Являлся развитием предыдущего проекта МиГ-23А, отличался от него крылом с двухщелевыми закрылками увеличенной площади, введением беспереплетного козырька фонаря кабины и системы дозаправки топливом в полете. Проект разработан в 1977 г. В связи с прекращением работ по кораблю с катапультами и началом разработки ТАВКР проекта 1143.5 “Рига” (ныне – “Адмирал Флота Советского Союза Кузнецов”), рассчитанного на базирование самолетов Су-27К, МиГ-29К и Як-41, реализован не был. Позднее для отработки посадки корабельных самолетов на аэрофинишер на базе МиГ-27 № 603 была создана летающая лаборатория, проходившая испытания на комплексе “Нитка”.
How accurate is this F-10 assessment? Does it really compare with the EF and Rafale or is DoD trying topull a fast one to justify more F-22s?
——————————————————————
China has deployed more than 700 advanced combat aircraft in the region of Taiwan and is continuing to acquire advanced Su-27 Flanker derivative types from Russia, build its own versions under license, and develop its own indigenous combat aircraft.DOD seemed to offer a re-assessment of the capabilities of China’s F-10 fighter, which it previously had compared to the F-16 Block 30. (See “Washington Watch: Chinese Military Is Catching Up—Fast,” September 2005, p. 12.) In this latest version of the annual China report, the Pentagon said the F-10 is probably more comparable to the Eurofighter Typhoon and French Rafale, considered among the top three fighters in the world today, after the US F-22A. The Pentagon expects more than 1,200 F-10s will be built, and improved versions—the F-10A and “Super-10”—are in advanced development.
From my humble point of view the J-10 is comparable to the Gripen but not to the Rafale or Eurofighter, reasons:
The Eurofighter has a better thrust to weight ratio, Meteor, ASRAAM and AMRAAM outclassing any thing possesed by the J-10 at this moment in Air to Air weaponry, the J-10 has not supercruise because is a single engine and is far from the twin engined Eurofighter combine thrust to weight ratio same will be with the Rafale.
The F-18F and F-16E are armed with IRIST or Sidewinder AIM-9X that makes them literaly as good as a Su-30MKI armed with R-73, the J-10 only carries third generation Python 3 AAMs in the class of the AA-8 Aphid, probably they aso can carry the AA-11 but i have not seen a picture of it.f-18f-8421.jpg)
So if am flying a F-18F i would not be scare of the J-10 if my F-18F is armed with AIM-9X and can cue it with a HMS besides the fact the Super Hornet carries lots of AMRAAMs or if i am in a F-16I armed with Python V
Sign In
