dark light

Italy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 418 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: China awaits fighter export breakthrough #2286938
    Italy
    Participant

    The article makes a valid point. The countries that are looking for a very basic fighter are opting for trainers.

    trainers do tend to have lower fuel capacities.. out of all the ones on the market right now, which ones have the best range?

    in reply to: Chinese ARJ-21 still suffering from design issues #537544
    Italy
    Participant

    Apparantly MOL was interested in the COMAC C919, but not in the DC-9 ARJ-21.

    if the DC-9 worked, why can’t the ARJ-21?

    in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2286956
    Italy
    Participant

    Look Ma, no hands !!!

    http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9194/56b8cc2575a7.jpg

    in that case, the original Su-34 job would’ve been more appropriate
    http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/NAPO-Su-34-1.jpg

    in reply to: F-5EM/FM vs MiG-21 Bison #2286960
    Italy
    Participant

    Sure about that?

    There’ve been reports of Chile integrating Derby on its F-5Es for ten years, & they have the EL/M-2032.

    Derby on Brazilian F-5s
    http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2771/4137184890_3c60e0cce9.jpg
    F-5EM DERBY by fernandogvmg, on Flickr

    now is Derby truly a bvr aam? some say its just a python with a radar dish.

    in reply to: Looking For MiG-29KUB/-35 Pics… #2287391
    Italy
    Participant

    kidding, right?

    I said nearly the same (but not the same), and thats the MiG-29KUB/M2 version with the two seats, not the older ones as in your picture.

    now compare that with the tiny F-16 and F-15

    http://aiaa.pr.erau.edu/past/Edwards98/F16_01.jpg

    in reply to: J-20 further along development than PAK-FA? #2287459
    Italy
    Participant

    The design can certainly be refined and made much better not just aerodynamically but in engines and avionics , sensors ,MMI too.

    I would bet inspite of the shortcoming of existing J-20 design the Chinese for now would keep what they have extensively tested and then introduce B/C/D model of J-20 with each block introducing iterative improvements in areas that i have mentioned . Thats the best way to keep risk manageable and making most of that they can within their aeroindustry knowhow and limitations.

    sounds like their tank designs, start with a T-55 copy, add increments until it becomes a new tank, the Type-99

    in reply to: Looking For MiG-29KUB/-35 Pics… #2287461
    Italy
    Participant

    i would calculate it is atleast 15.5tons empty. with 8ton external load and 6.5tons fuel for F-18E. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/docs/EF_overview.pdf

    There is only 5% wing area difference between MIG-29K & F-18E and 3 feet length difference but MIG-29K has much taller tails and shorter nose. so i dont think there would 20% difference in internal fuel capacity.

    the other link is just random rumbling with guess estimates. there were never 4000kg internal fuel for MIG-29A. MIG never said that 24.5tons of Maximum takeoff weight of MIG-29K is from an aircraft carrier with 5.5ton external load.Infact we dont know the MTOW with 5.5ton external load of MIG-29K.

    or in other words you don’t have an empty weight estimate of the MiG-35

    in reply to: PLAAF Thread 15 #2287468
    Italy
    Participant

    That is some really well done Kabuki Theater.

    On the other hand, it seems the support structure is a lot better than I had thought. I take what I said before, back. But, it still seems needlessly complicated simply to achieve an angled support. A simple A-frame would not have worked?

    most other aircraft by road transport is not done through angled support
    http://mccartyandsons.com/images/homeslideshow-01.jpg
    http://nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/space-shuttle-enterprise-truck-1977-620.jpg

    in reply to: Su-17, A-7 Corsair II, SEPECAT Haguar #2287471
    Italy
    Participant

    And don’t forget the fact that the A-7 was in service a good 10 years before the other 2 aircraft.

    Question on the Su-17/22.
    Is the main engine inlet in the nose fully variable (like the MiG-21’s)?

    If so, why? After all, it’s usually not required for a ground attack type, the A-7 and Jaguar don’t have it, and even the fast Su-24 has simple holes for inlets?

    are you sure?
    A7 first flight 1965, introduction 1967
    Su17 first flight 1966, introduction 1970
    Jaguar 68/73

    in reply to: NEW CHINESE STEALTH FIGHTER SIGHTED #2287474
    Italy
    Participant

    Frankly speaking i dont see that happening i.e them building a light fighter becuase they dont have the money

    thats why you work with India on AMCA, split the costs.

    in reply to: Looking For MiG-29KUB/-35 Pics… #2287707
    Italy
    Participant
    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2287734
    Italy
    Participant

    Could you be more specific here, what threats in Africa??

    Seems Nato are in no Hurry to Bomb Syria or Iran eighter.
    US are in the prossess of pulling out of wars.
    Europe the same, Not starting new ones.
    This is getting silly..

    your country’s air force for example has participated in Libya, Afghanistan, is flying out of Kyrgyzstan bases, etc. things far beyond Norway. In the cold war, it wuold’ve been issues concerning Soviet Union.

    like wise Italy was focused east towards Yugoslavia, Albania, etc. now it looks south at LIbya, etc

    its not me who determines the threats, its the governments.

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2287760
    Italy
    Participant

    I’m sorry.. When did we ever considering bombing Bulgaria??:p

    So by your line of thought, we need to increase our AF for bombing other African countries like Somalia etc.
    This is the most sorry excuse ever..

    It may surprise you but that is the cold war. Governments on both sides of the curtain had contingency plans to go to war with each other should the time come.

    These days its all about threats in Africa and if you did not notice some European countries take involvement in North Africa and the Mid East very seriously.

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2287771
    Italy
    Participant

    Why don’t you provide me with an real answer.
    And pls another than “its nice to have an oversized AF” for no reason at all..
    There are a 1000 good reason to use those funding on other departments like health care for one.

    While my cold war analoge may be a boring point, its rings true.
    There are no good reason why European Nato AF should suddenly increase their AF proccurments.

    While the focus are shifting towards Pacific and Asia, i fail to see what this has to do with Italy, Denmark, Norway, etc AF unit numbers..

    I disagree. We are no longer thinking about bombing Bulgarians and Czechs, but instead, North Africans and some other place far away. Its like when Alexander shifted away from Thrace and went down to Mesopotamia and beyond

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2287783
    Italy
    Participant

    But outside Europe:

    * non-“parter” nation Japan will buy a sizeable number of F-35s, and expect South Korea and Singapore to operate it in the medium term

    * the RAAF are actually argiung for an increase in their fighter strength – buying the originally planned 100 F-35s while retaining F-18Fs converted to EF-18G spec

    * the US is emerging from recession, and is now firmly focussed on the Asia Pacific which is fast becoming the economic and political global focal point.

    Indeed the East is where the action is at, which boggles me why Russia isn’t developing Vladivostok, Sakhalin, and Khabarovsk as its next main cities especially since its so close to S.Korea, Japan, and CHina. c ould benefit much from increased trade.

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 418 total)