Did you ever ask yourself why the Foxbat never got any speed records of Mach 3.2 if it could go that fast? Why no Mig-25 has got any combat kills while cruising at 80,000 feet and Mach 3+? :diablo:

I think its got more to do with fuel / range. The engine burnout thing seems to be unproven & later variants were ok.

He does have a point that there is but one source alone which says that the engines would overheat/tear out at >2.8M and that is not a reliable yardstick when other sources say different.

Interesting stuff..but the basic thing that strikes me is that going to 3M is of limited tactical significance vs 2.5 M, whats the difference really in practical operational terms for you end up guzzling more fuel.

To eliminating the Obsoleszenzen of the CAPTOR MRadargerätes intended replacement by the procurement of a CAPTOR ERadargerätes is taken into account starting from 2012.

Babelfishing,

So it means planned from 2012 onwards by the German side..but doesnt mention whether all EFs will be brought upto same std with Captor-E or it will be applied to T3?

^^^

Thats only to be expected. Fanboy #1 supporting Fanboy # 2, with irrelevant rambling.

TJs points are very valid & apply. All this “unsurpassed”, with “impunity” and what not, has no business in a serious discussion especially when refuted again and again. Taking statements out of context and publicising them (such as that newspaper article & no missile can catch it) is also ridiculous.

But no matter lets fan-away with our fanboy uber/super MiG-23s and untouchable MiG-25s.

If Firebar had started a “MiG-25 appreciation thread” and only stuck to what was good about it, and not got into its the “bestest eva” business, it would have been much better, for it is & was a remarkable aircraft.

Scorp – “Questions?”

Well I really cant think of any significant ones!! That has to be the most comprehensive post on EF, seen, kudos!

Ok, a few (added):

– What are these software upgrades PSP etc for? FBW?
– – New software based on RTOS (for?)
-CAPTOR A2G modes? Which ones?
– Any idea how many targets the DASS can handle? IIRC contemporary SPJs can handle some 4.

Also, any data on Captor (MSA) range for TWS, and # of targets/engaged?

Toan,

Thanks.

1. The two times range bit is hard to quantify, since we dont know the exact modes/ targets its meant against.

Eg the Captor radar could be twice as detecting/at picking up manouevering targets at range, vs the Foxhunter, but in raw terms the range may not have increased.

Unfortunately, 90% of the stuff we get from the lay media turns out the same way, leaving us hanging. :rolleyes:

2. Are any operational Gripens committed to the AESA yet? Like in Sweden or elsewhere.

Everyone’s a winner!! 😉

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/08/27/315132/india-set-for-offset-bounty.html

Pretty much – the MRCA if done properly could really make a huge difference to the Indian aerospace industry.

Integrating into the global supply chain is a distinct possibility thanks to the competence built up via local programs such as the LCA, ALH, LCH, UAVs etc..

Apart from offsets, there are a bunch of joint ventures & own production programs with firm orders coming up – that should also help.

LCA- Six squadrons , 126 aircraft at a minimum
Medium Transport AC with RUssia – 40-60 for the IAF
Light Combat Aircraft – 60+ for the IA/IAF
Light Utility Helicopter – 197 between the IA/IAF
PAK-FA with some 9-10 squadrons (180-200 aircraft)

Then there is the medium chopper, UAVs (MALE types), SARAS (Do-228 replacement with 15 orders from the IA to begin with) ..

Other developments such as the MCA, UCAV…its boom time for Indian aerospace & its all being done on a rather low budget (2% of the GDP is allocated to defense).

If it goes upto 3% as demanded by many committees and analysts…the above will pick up even more.

Incidentally, Germany has relaunched production of the Do-228 given rising fuel costs.

HAL India is actually supplying the wings and other kit, since they had kept their production lines going all these years supplying Do-228s to the IAF & IN, for Recce, light transport and EW.

In my opinion, the WORST aircraft has to have been tried in combat or at least service) and failed miserably. It’s not enough to have been bad on paper. Likewise, this is worst aircraft, not service record, so if someone was able to use it effectively, then I think it doesn’t make the list.

For that reason, such awful aircraft as the Brewster Buffalo and the Bell Airacobra don’t make the list as they were still capable in the right hands. The worst aircraft needs to have been a greater danger to its own pilots than anyone else, been bad from the get-go, and never proven useful in a flight role. If the aircraft stunk but was used well enough as a target tug (Fairey Battle, Boulton-Paul Defiant), then I wouldn’t count it. Likewise, if some variant of the aircraft proved itself to be not too terrible (like the McDonnell Demon), then you can’t just cherry pick one variant. I wouldn’t consider it if its failure was due to circumstances beyond its control. For example, an obsolete aircraft was used against the odds for a situation it was never designed for (like the P-26 in Philippine service).

I agree, bar the Battle – it was simply so awful in the lives it took & it was thoroughly out of time and place. Practically every aircraft could be used as an aircraft tug, so why should that count?

Same for the Defiant – no forward armament, what were they thinking?? But at least some use in the night fighter role. :rolleyes:

Lavochkin LaGG-1/3 – The -1 was awful, but the -3 was really not much better. Like many of the aircraft above, it might have been a good racer, but that’s about it. It had a good speed, but was really underpowered, had poor maneuverability, finnicky handling characteristics, and was just a bad choice for production. When the Japanese acquired one via a defector, they couldn’t believe that the same country that produced the I-15 and I-16 would produce such a brick of a plane.

I wanted to put the LaGG-1/3 in but held off thinking they did lead to the rather creditable variants such as the La-7 which by all accounts did pretty well for themselves, including combat.

I remember reading though that Russian pilots used to call the LaGG-3 “guaranteed varnished flying coffin” a play on LaGG, because the wooden airframe used to explode to bits/ catch fire when hit with incendiary with distressing regularity. :rolleyes:

Technically, the Brewster was only employed by the Military Air Service of the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (Militaire Luchtvaart van het Koninklijk Nederlands-Indisch Leger a.k.a. ML-KNIL), not the Dutch air force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Netherlands_East_Indies_Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Air_Force

They still count as Dutch!! :diablo::p

Swerve, Toan – thats great.

So you have the production “tranches” and the development “blocks”.

The jumble of data finally begins to make sense.

Meanwhile Scorpion launched a Counter Air Mission with this:

The HEA helmet is slated for delivery by 2009 and is AFAIK already supported by the PSP4 software aka SRP4 of current block 5 aircraft.

Now what in the name of.. is the PSP4 software or SRP4 and what is a HEA helmet?

Also what is ROVER3 function?