dark light

Levsha

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,546 through 1,560 (of 2,665 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: China's Kamikaze Aircraft #2314496
    Levsha
    Participant

    It reminds me of the false speculation/conjecture put out by the Bush regime in 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, that Saddam was converting L-29 Delphin trainers into unmanned cruise missiles to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

    in reply to: China's Kamikaze Aircraft #2314516
    Levsha
    Participant

    He has some sort of point.

    Has anyone ever suggested that the USAF or USN would ever pull out time expired F-16s or A-4s from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AF base and start flying one-way suicide missions in them?:rolleyes:

    Why would anyone think such a discussion would be any more rational or acceptable with respect to the Chinese?:confused:

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2316493
    Levsha
    Participant

    Syria would also have loads of Tu-22Ms. Don’t forget them!:D

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2316499
    Levsha
    Participant

    Iran and Syria!
    How many new airframes has either country introduced into their military in the last 2 decades?:rolleyes:
    As for China…

    in reply to: YAK-42 Crash – Russia #569216
    Levsha
    Participant

    It’s been reported that the Yak-42 cannot take off with a single engine failure – in comparison with the Boeing 737 which can still complete its take off even with an engine out at V1 speed. The Yak is actually a tri-engined plane, surely that’s a deficiency in its design, its single engine out performance?

    in reply to: Su-15TM vs F-4E #2317582
    Levsha
    Participant

    Your comment infers that the Su-15 is a great airplane because of the aircraft it shot down….pretty distasteful post in my opinion and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

    What the…:eek:

    The Su-15 was a great aircraft and it did shoot down several airliners.
    I never implied that this “greatness” was a result solely because of its “kills,” of course.

    Although it may certainly add to the interceptor’s reputation or “mystique” – for anyone who holds much value to such things…

    in reply to: Su-15TM vs F-4E #2319045
    Levsha
    Participant

    There’s an 8 year difference in entry dates, almost a generation apart when you consider the rate of technological progress in the 1960s.

    For stats on Soviet aircraft, http://www.airwar.ru is good:

    For the Su-15 of 1967, a practical range of 1550 km
    For the Su-15TM of the 1970s, a practical range of 1380 km

    Wikipedia gives the Lightning F.6 a range of 1370 km…

    http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/su15.html

    in reply to: Su-15TM vs F-4E #2319052
    Levsha
    Participant

    Timescale wise, the Lightning and Su-15 are not comparable. The Lightning entered regular service around the same time as the Su-9, the Su-15’s predecessor – around 1959. The Su-15 a generation ahead from the Su-9 (and the EE Lightning).

    Concerning the Lightning’s performance, from Wikipedia (but well sourced):

    ^ An F.6 equipped with Red Top missiles can reach Mach 2.0 on an ICAO Std. day at 36,000 ft. A clean F.6 can reach Mach 2.1 at 37,000 ft .[5]

    ^ This is based on a maximum-range subsonic intercept radius of 370 NM (425 mi, 625 km). An F.6 equipped with Red Top missiles can climb to 36,000 ft and cruise at Mach 0.87 to a loiter or intercept area 370 NM distant. It then has 15 minutes on station to complete the intercept or identification task before returning to base. The afterburners are not used during this profile, and the total mission time is 112 min.[5]

    ^ An F.6 equipped with Red Top missiles can climb to 36,000 ft, accelerate to Mach 1.8, and intercept a target at 135 NM only 10.7 min after brake release. A 2g level turn allows a rear-quarter re-attack 1.6 min later. Following a best-range cruise and descent, the Lightning enters the landing pattern with 800 lb of fuel remaining with a total mission time of 35 min.[5]

    ^ This is the initial climb rate associated with the Lightning’s best time-to-climb profile of 450 KIAS to Mach 0.87. Using this profile, a Lightning F.6 with Red Top missiles can climb from Sea Level to 36,000 ft in 2.1 min following initial acceleration to 450 KIAS, or 2.8 min from brake release. A clean F.6 can perform the same climb in 2.0 min following initial acceleration, or 2.7 min from brake release.[5

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#Operational_history

    in reply to: Su-15TM vs F-4E #2319772
    Levsha
    Participant

    Clearly the fault of the Su-15.

    Clearly not.
    I was just pointing the role the Su-15 made in some very significant events of the cold war. I wasn’t making a moral judgement…

    Heard it had a respectable 900km radius bit higher than EEL

    A ‘bit’ higher – or just a little bit? Has anyone got any figures to compare both aircraft?

    in reply to: Su-15TM vs F-4E #2320161
    Levsha
    Participant

    How does the combat range of the Su-15 compare to the EE Lightning? I don’t think there’s much of a difference – that is to say, not great…

    Great aircraft, one of my favourite Soviet aircraft. Let’s not forget all the aircraft it downed:

    1978 KAL B707
    1981 Argentine Canadair CL-44
    1982 KAL B747

    in reply to: attack helicopters compared #2324712
    Levsha
    Participant

    too much exposed glass cockpits on this one? :confused:

    it’s probably got less glazing than on a Flanker or F-16.
    I’m sure there’s a good logic to fitting large glass glass cockpits to helicopter gunships – as there is to designing large amounts of glazing to fixed wing aircraft…

    in reply to: Der Pak-Fa Episode 17, return of the stealth #2326039
    Levsha
    Participant

    The F-111 has been done the same at airshows for years (and nobody ever said it was such a bad thing)!:D

    in reply to: Air Ops Over Libya (Part Deux) #2326053
    Levsha
    Participant

    However, considering Rafale can attack at least six targets with six GBU-12 or AASMs during one sortie, I still think that the combat achievement of destroying 2,500 ground targets (which may be a tank, a vehicle, a mortar site, or even just a gunman in a building…..) during 2,400 strike sorties is not that extraordinary…..

    … in comparison with which other aerial bombing campaign?:confused::rolleyes:

    in reply to: PLAN News, Photos and Speculation #3 #2035912
    Levsha
    Participant

    Rolls-Royce produce a marine propulsion version of the RR Spey. I wonder has anyone in China decided to do the same with their Spey production? What about the WS-10 – a potential ship engine?

    in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2326968
    Levsha
    Participant

    Or even “samouverennost”…;)

Viewing 15 posts - 1,546 through 1,560 (of 2,665 total)