If you have 2030 in mind, it’s obvious that the actual european engine might sound a bit old at that time.
But remember that the Rafale has now an evolution of the M88-2 of the beginning, and a 9t version is available too.As Ananda wrote, there is no new engines fron SNECAMA or RR in the short/medium term.
indeed amca is a far time away, first prototype not even until 2018.. that’s 5 years away.. look at what happened to the Lockheed JSF in 5 years…big changes
Doesn’t help that the successor aircraft are both more expensive and less sprightly than the current Hornets and F-16s. Thunderbirds can always transition to T-X, Blue Angels…?
indeed its expensive but rather than having blue angels disband all together, just make em fly something more economical
Cat is angry because nice new plane is ruined by 1960’s style airline scheme used by North Korea..
here’s another out of date scheme
no love for Yakutia superjet? this forum seems to love that airline
of those pictures only the 2nd one seems the most realistic.
all those other ones like this
will not happen in real life. all those weapons but no fuel tank to take them to the target.. does the MiG plan to drop all those bombs on its own territory?
look at aircraft on real bombing missions
notice that? all of them have at least two fuel tanks. you need fuel to take your bombs to the target. duh.
if the MiG-29 had such great payload capabilities for a2g then why did the Indians use the Mirage 2000 for bombing instead of the MiG-29 during the war?
First, could you prove that inboard pylons on MiG-29 could barely load plastic missile like X-31?
Secondly, did you know the internal fuel for MiG-29M as latest version had already reached 4.5 tons so that its combat radius approached to 1400 km?
The 4.5 tons is a fuel capability for none external fuel tank.They are still MiG-29 Fulcrum not something else, just like F-16E/F or F-16C/D as some kind of version improved from F-16.
You want do math? let’s count it:
Your F-16I with two CFT which gives total 1.4 ton fuel plus internal fuel 3 tons. Now it has 4.4 ton. Two 2200L on inboard with 1134L under centerline, equal to 5534L, less than 6000L for MiG29. Both of internal and external fuel are less than MiG-29M.
And I am waiting to see your F-16 loading four external fuel tanks under wing for refueling mission.
And I didn’t mention the CFT disrupt the F-16I’s aerodynamic body, so it will no longer be a fighter for air-superiority as long as CFT fitted.
Is your CFT droppable? :diablo:
you and your double standards, of course a tanked up F-16 will be bad for aerodynamics.. you think a tanked up mig-29 will still be able to dog fight? please..
we’re also talking about load outs for a2g, so stop dragging in air superiority. Its called goal changing.
secondly you pointing out MiG-29’s internal fuel capacity is meaningless with out other information. MiG-29 uses two engines and is heavier so it needs more fuel to push that big body of it than the F-16.
latest MiG-29 is closer to 11k kg, f-16 is 8.5 or the UAE version is 9
that is permanent weight it can’t drop. cfts can at least be detached.
the Indian MiG-29UPG’s spine is basically its own version of a cft.
Sign In
