dark light

LastOfGunfighters

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 200 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2138289
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    MiG-31 wasn’t the first aircraft to have a data-link either. Iraqi MiG-25s which did seriously commit to an attack were generally shot down. Harassment at long range and then running off was more common. Amazing how the Iraqi MiG-25 has almost acquired some sort of mythical reputation thanks to Wikipedia.

    Anyway the point is there not all data-links are created equal. The data-link on a MiG-31 certainly wouldn’t be passing along anything useful for engaging targets on the ground for example.

    in reply to: unit cost of F-16 A/C and Mig-23ML in 1990 #2138291
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    I very much doubt any MiG-23 could perform a 9G sustained turn which the F-16 could do at low altitudes. I think later MiG-23s were rated for 8.5G, earlier ones less than that.

    For whatever reason Western pilots who had the opportunity to fly the thing (like the USAF’s Red Eagles) seemed to hate it despite remarking on its very impressive acceleration.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2140322
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    Does anybody know if JAGM-F will include a new motor and other changes? JAGM in its current iteration is basically a Hellfire-R with dual-mode seeker.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2142778
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    F-22 also has passive EW system only.

    Where do you get this from? Almost everything about the ALR-94 is classified as far as I know.

    in reply to: F-14 vs MiG-23 #2143639
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    The MiG-23 could accelerate like a demon and could pull 8.5Gs in its lightened form. Not great at BVR and miserably short legs but I think it’s a tad underrated in a dogfight.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2148335
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    I doubt this aircraft will come to fruition but all it would mean is an excellent opportunity for the USAF to buy new fighters to complement the limited number of F-22s and replace remaining F-15C/D while PCA is in the works. It shouldn’t affect the F-35 buy at all although naturally some foolish politicians will probably try to make it an issue.

    in reply to: Was the F-15 the best choice for Japan? #2148829
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    Maybe the F-14 would have been a better choice *if* the Japanese were willing to pay for better engines than the TF30s. But chances are that would have made it significantly more expensive than the F-15 they did buy.

    Tornado would have been okay but it would still suffer from mediocre performance at high altitudes. Not ideal if they ever had to try to intercept MiG-25s.

    in reply to: Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard #2150141
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    Even factoring intake design into the overall picture I’d imagine the aircraft is limited by the flight software versus being physically incapable of going past Mach 1.8.

    Why are they bothering having Mirage 2000s escort Rafales? At this point I don’t think the Mirage 2000 has any air-to-air capabilities that the Rafale lacks.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2151792
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    Gerard what’s the story behind that F-15 with 12x AIM-120s? I don’t recall seeing a F-15 with that high-visibility orange since the early testing days of the program and it has turkey feathers on the engine nozzles. Yet the AIM-120s and FLIR pod mark it as something much newer than that.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2162447
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    As long as you’re not worried about the long-term prospects of the concrete you’re landing on I fail to see why an F-35B couldn’t operate without those heat-resistant mats for some time.

    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    Eagle do you have any more details about the F-15 using the Falcon family of missiles? I assume they were the same variants as deployed on the F-106?

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2173096
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    I noticed the first summary mentions the F-16E, I thought the USAF didn’t procure any of those?

    “Air Superiority Family of Systems”, I hate such phrasing. We can’t we call a program for a new fighter what it is?

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2179496
    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    What makes you say they are the same CFTs used on the F-15E?

    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    The value of using the F-111 to strafe any sort of target seems questionable. Maybe back when McNamara was envisioning thousands of the things being built but in reality…

    A 25mm GAU-12 would have been a better selection than the 20mm M61 but I don’t think the GAU-12 existed at the time.

    LastOfGunfighters
    Participant

    Never heard of the Su-24 having any sort of speed advantage over the F-111. About the only thing that could catch up to a F-111 down low was a MiG-23 (if it didn’t run out of fuel first).

    The Su-24 was more-or-less Sukhoi’s “ideal” strike aircraft for that time and successor to the Su-17 series which started as a quick way to incorporate variable-sweep wings into an existing design while new designs were still being worked on.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 200 total)