dark light

Levsha

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,261 through 1,275 (of 2,665 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2290533
    Levsha
    Participant

    @ Berkut

    PAK FA’s landing gear was designed to operate from short, unprepared runways 😉

    It was? just like the F-35C then (almost).;)

    in reply to: Venezuela transferred at least one F-16 to Iran #2290654
    Levsha
    Participant

    Surely the Venezuelans can not afford to give away F-16 airframes so easily?
    Isn’t the type under embargo from the USA? Surely Venezuela needs to hang on to every F-16 and, more importantly, the spare parts that they contain, to keep their F-16 fleet flying?:confused:

    in reply to: Turkish F-4 down #2291863
    Levsha
    Participant

    Sure, bombing civilian infrastructure is a hell of way to accomplish a mission.

    Sure, why not? Every country does it.

    in reply to: Is there any point in VTOL Strike Aircraft today? #2292843
    Levsha
    Participant

    they are a great croud pleaser at airshows at the very least :diablo:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PTm-uehVOGk

    in reply to: A400M thread #2293478
    Levsha
    Participant

    I’m sure the A400M is a lot cheaper to operate, more reliable and safer than the Belfast?

    What advances has the Boeing 787 got above the 707? I’m sure it has a few?

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions VI #2293481
    Levsha
    Participant

    I am not sure of this.. The fraction of radar-guided air kills throughout the history of aerial combat has been quite minimal so far and I don’t think it’s gonna change anytime soon. Quite on the contrary, we can observe relatively rapid rise of low observability measures to reduce the aircraft’s RCS or enhance the ECM coverage but the apparent measures to reduce the IR signature are somewhat lacking. I can’t see an F-22 shooting down a J-20 using radar guidance anytime soon.

    You can’t compare the performance of 1960s radar guided missiles such as the AIM-4 Falcon with today’s technology. Bear in mind most of the air to air kills of the last 20 years have been with radar guided missiles AIM-7, R-40, AIM-120, etc.

    And what is the range of the so called short range IR missiles like R-73? I believe it’s up to 30 km for R-73…

    Levsha
    Participant

    I did find some texts about mig17 and mig21 being evaluated by the US forces when they got their hands on a few planes. It mentions that mig17 had rwr. If true, it would suggest that indeed pretty much all soviet planes on the list above had some sort of rwr system.

    http://area51specialprojects.com/migs_area51.html

    Very interesting link – the MiG-17 was actually a Polish built Lim-5.

    in reply to: historical kill percentages of SAMs #1792516
    Levsha
    Participant

    Firstly I would like to list all the wars that have seen SAM usage. Naturally, small stuff like manpads would be almost impossible to come by, so i suggest we stick to just heavy tactical systems and strategic sams.

    That would be unfortunate to rule out the combat record of MANPADS, they are easily the most successful category of SAM. Coalition forces in Afghanistan are not afraid of the Taliban getting their hands on the S-300 system, they are worried that the Taliban will get their hands on the Igla or Stinger.
    Most successful application of SAMs was probably the Stinger in the last few years of the Soviet-Afghan war.

    in reply to: A400M thread #2297702
    Levsha
    Participant

    Okay, I know this thread has to do with the A400M, which is a modern transport plane. But after watching this clip (URL Below) of An-22 short landing, I wonder if the A400 can do the same, too…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPOCd4g7Fs

    Remember, That Antei didn’t didn’t have to take of again from that airport, it was to be a permanent exhibit at a museum there – I’m not sure it could have?:confused:

    Impressive sound all right, though – same as a Bear bomber I guess…

    in reply to: A400M thread #2297751
    Levsha
    Participant

    Why red? The A400 is a multinational affair is it not? with all those national flags I’d imagine there would be a choice of many colours to paint such a display team – how about the colours below?:diablo:

    http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/s/sex-rb.gif

    in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2301057
    Levsha
    Participant

    We need to have hard statistical data and records of the actual number of premature in-flight shutdowns and catastrophic failures per 100,000 hours of flight or so, before we can actually draw a conclusion on the RD-33 reliability. Are these records available for the IAF, Malaysian AF, RuAF?

    in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2301062
    Levsha
    Participant

    Phantom was an overrated piece of machinery. it was not a bad aircraft, not by any means. but only gained promenance cuz of how wide spread its combat use was. It certainly got spanked by supposedly lower performing aircraft.

    You don’t seem to know much about the F-4’s service or combat record of the last 50 years or so.

    Tell me, in which war or conflict did the F-4 get “spanked”?

    in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2301067
    Levsha
    Participant

    Some logic you got there.

    There are many books and sources on MiG-29s exploitation in both Soviet and Russian air forces. None that I have seen have any mention of the kind of engine failure rates experienced by IAF.

    Probably because the Soviet/Russian AFs are comparing the reliability of the MiG-29 to its predecessors: MiG-21, MiG-23, in which case the MiG-29 (and RD-33) would look very good, reliability and safety wise. The IAF are comparing the MiG-29 to the Mirage 2000 – MiG look not so good…

    in reply to: RuAF aviation, news and development thread #2301620
    Levsha
    Participant

    It should work in clear skies and flat desert of Middleast.

    And is that the area of the world which the RuAF is foremost expected to fight? Interesting news.

    in reply to: RuAF aviation, news and development thread #2301735
    Levsha
    Participant

    Low light TV channel — not thermal, but 90% of the practical capability at 30% the price. Only thing a TI channel let’s you do that this thing can’t is see through smoke and clouds. Plattan is blind in bad weather.

    It won’t be much use in most of Europe then, will it?

Viewing 15 posts - 1,261 through 1,275 (of 2,665 total)