There has never been any evidence that the Soviet Union received any Tomcats from Iran – none, whatsoever.

Any other pilot operating over Syria knows that flying over 5000feet negates any and all manpads threats.. No reason to get shot down otherwise.

They should have used a Su-24 or Su-34 instead then, to avoid getting shot down.

Oh and the US media and military did have their way.. which I find very creepy.

Wrong thread though, isn’t it? This is the Russia in Syria thread.

I’m not sure what more I could do: if we compare Hunter to its contemporaries and peers like Mystere IV and Mig-17: Hunter was the largest, with shortest range and performance only average within that group. Hard to characterize it anything else than a very conservative design.

The Hunter certainly had better range than the MiG – are you sure its range was any less than that of the various Mystere variants? I’m also pretty sure its warload was superior to the French and Soviet aircraft. Try to actually compare the specifications of each aircraft – you might be informed. BTW, the Hunter was only a little bit heavier than the Mystere IV.

What’s the only fighter plane that bagged a couple F14s?

True.
Has any F-15 ever been shot down by another aircraft?

Eurofighter Typhoon will often fly with drop tanks and external weaponry so that will raise its drag profile a lot. The F-35 will usually be flying clean. I doubt if there will be much difference in fuel consumption between both aircraft over their operational lifetimes.

Does it drink less fuel? I don’t think so..
A twinpack of EJ200s does 120 kN dry thrust at sfc 0.74-0.81 and 180 kN wet thrust at sfc 1.66-1.73.
A single F135-PW-100 does 125 kN dry thrust at alleged sfc ~0.89 and 190 kN wet thrust at alleged sfc ~1.92.
That would mean, by using identical engine settings, the F-35 would spend 15-25% more fuel at dry setting and 17-22% more in afterburner.

F-35A, fuel 8278 kg, range 2752 km, fuel consumption 8278 kg : 2752 km = 3 kg/km
EF-2000, fuel 4996 kg, range 2600 km (?), fuel consumption 4996 kg : 2600 km = 1.92 kg/km

Any chance you guys could post your sources?

God bless Hunter, it is a beautiful aircraft and had long and very successful service: but efficient design it was not. I built 1/72 Hunter back in the day and when I unboxed it, I had to check that I had not accidentally bought a wrong scale model, or that Revell has not screwed up dimensions. The plane is huge for the period. A 6-ton day fighter was massive for the day (same weight as Gripen…) and the Hunter did not offer anything special for the size – performance was unexceptional, range was pitiful and there was no radar. It’s no wonder that Petter wanted to design something smaller. And Javelin was much bigger…

The Hunter was 2 or 3 tonnes lighter than the F-100, almost the same weight as the Super Mystere and about a tonne heavier than the MiG-19. I’m pretty sure it was efficient enough.

In the context of this forum, it just seems ironic. This drone could end up being “sexier” than some of the much vaunted fighters that are bandied around on various threads.

A drone sexier than a JF-17 or Tejas – naahh…

Peter G

RAAF went with The Mirage III to replace its Sabre fighters.

They also looked at F-5, F-104, F-105 and Lightning.

Lightning was too specialised, high tire pressure and range was too short.
F-105 was rejected as too expensive, complex and inadequate performance (probably in fighter role)
F-5 rejected as performance was inadequate.

So down to F-104 and Mirage III

Went with Mirage III due ti:
Runway performance – 135 vs 285 psi
Lower chance of FOD
Less chance of stalling
No gun issues
Ferry range was 1670 nm vs 1517 nm
Higher cruise speed
Higher loiter altitude
Cheaper
Better landing characteristics…

Thing about Australian Mirages is that their safety record is as bad as Luftwaffe F-104 – 36% losses.

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/3a3%20losses.htm