Page 7 – Key Publishing

MM11

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 158 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 →

Author

Posts
February 12, 2009 at 3:09 am in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2456620

MM11
Participant

From here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw020909p2.xml&headline=F-22%20Design%20Shows%20More%20Than%20Expected

The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16.

Equal exchange ratios for the teens, but more worse one for the F-35? The fact that LM is supposed to be involved in these studies as well makes you wonder if that is not just another marketing game.
And how could it be that the F-22 is 10 times better than the F-35? Sounds much like stealth isn’t going to that super duper good on the F-35.

February 12, 2009 at 2:59 am in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2456622

MM11
Participant

Probably J-11 or J-10 equipped with PL-12 and PL-7

Unlikely as I dout these aircraft could achieve such a high exchange ration, let alone that those types exist. While the threat aircraft is described to be on of the not to distant future, if I read it right. Su-35 might be more realistic here.

Since WVR losses are 1:1, it appears the tanks have been dropped.

Not WVR but exchange ratio in general, meaning both WVR and BVR.

Math must not be his strength. Or some engagements fit into two categories, BVR and mid or mid and WVR.

Maybe, who knows.

If a Gen 4 fighter with a modern radar cannot detect F-35 up close, how would an AWACS fair any better from 300km away?

It was a general question not related to “AWACS can detect the F-35”.

Probably the missiles typically sold with that type of airplane: R77 and R74 for SU-30/35; ASRAAM, AIM-120 and Meteor for Typhoon/Gripen; Mica, Meteor for Rafale; and PL-12, PL-7 for J-10/11.

I’m not so sure here. I think they in fact used a generic missile.

Lots of thrust from the big AL-31s and 2 R-77s between the engine nacelles where they don’t produce much additional drag.

Given the Su-30MKIs weight and drag the AL-31FPs are not that thrusty. And the Typhoon for example carries its 4 MRAAMs semi recessed.

February 11, 2009 at 7:07 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2456807

MM11
Participant

RAC MiG Chief Designer Vladimir Barkovsky has stated (at a press-conference @ Bangalore today) a production representative MiG-35 (2-seater) is in final assembly at the Sokol plant and will have it’s first flight in May, in preparation for the MMRCA trials.

I’m excited to see it and if it really resembels the configuration as presented on MAKS 2007.

February 10, 2009 at 10:42 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457230

MM11
Participant

It is none the less F 16 IN. See the above pic.

Ante you are an uncritical consumer of every crap, aren’t you. :rolleyes:
It’s labeled as such for marketing only, but it is in fact NO F-16IN. Has it any of the goodies which differ the F-16IN from the blk 60?

February 10, 2009 at 10:28 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457238

MM11
Participant

It is F16 IN. It shares a lot with the block 60 so you can paint the F 16 IN and it becomes just that.

It’s a stock blk 60 aircraft from the UAE as the markings show, not more not less. The MiG-35 presented by RAC MiG is also labeled as such, when it is in fact not representive for the final product.

February 10, 2009 at 9:13 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457299

MM11
Participant

Because if the PakAF order NG’s SABR retrofits, then the ‘IN’ will have greatly diminished advantage.

Best go with the SH blk2, ’cause non of India’s potential adversaries are likely to have (or afford) a comparable a/c anytime soon. Rafale & Eurofighter are just not up to the strike role, no-matter what the brochure dribble. Savvy?

And what has it exactly to do with what I said? Ehm let me guess nothing :rolleyes:
What I was refering to is, that the F-16IN won’t be shown at the Aeroindia, but the F-16E/F blk 60 as it is the most closest. That’s what I said in another thread, but something a certain person dismissed because LM said so ;).

February 10, 2009 at 8:35 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457333

MM11
Participant

Pfffft…that swerve guy again :rolleyes:.
I trust the AN/APG-80 will still retain a significant performance edge over NG’s SABR F-16 retro-fit. Does ‘IN’ get ‘Sniper’ pod?

There’s only 1 aircraft @ the show that’s trials ready- ‘Super-Hornet’ YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!!WOOOOOOO-HOOO!!:cool:

? What do you exactly want to tell me with that?

February 10, 2009 at 8:03 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457357

MM11
Participant

Who is disputing that. Infact i was the one who said F 16 IN is not a new aicraft it shares most things with the Block 60. While the likes of Swerve said its a paper plane. Yeah rght.

It’s derived from the blk 60 no doubt, but there is a reason why it’s called F-16IN not F-16E/F blk 60 ;).

February 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457398

MM11
Participant

here here my friend

All pics property of Bharat Rakshak

Nice pictures, but as I said its an F-16 blk 60, with “F-16IN” painted on it. Just take a look at the markings, it’s an UAE aircraft ;).

February 10, 2009 at 7:36 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457477

MM11
Participant

But where is it?

February 10, 2009 at 7:18 pm in reply to: Aero India 2009 #2457487

MM11
Participant

And where is your F-16IN Ante? :diablo:

February 10, 2009 at 6:28 pm in reply to: IAF – News & Discussion – II #2457550

MM11
Participant

Like I said quite a few do not mean just GPS and MIDS. And the Dassault VP said it in an India specefic deal and claimed full ToT for the Rafale claimed that its advantage over the Gripen and EF is that it do not need U.S authorization.

Now the GPS/MIDS require U.S authorization, so he must not be offering it to say that, and he must be comparing it to the Non GPS/MIDS Gripen and EF. Otherwise he is being dishonest, which i hardly think is the case.

No I do not believe what you say is reality. And do not care if you consider me ignorant.

And what sources do claim that other components than MIDS and GPS are related to US approval? No one! MIDS and GPS are in fact what has been the issue in both Austria and Saudi Arabia. You ignore that very reality! If Dassault offers the Rafale without it they are indeed not restricted to US approval, while the Eurofighter at least now still needs US approval for the AMRAAM, which is not the case for the Rafale.

February 10, 2009 at 6:09 pm in reply to: IAF – News & Discussion – II #2457558

MM11
Participant

I have never disputed that these were involved in the Saudi deal. But these are not the only critical American components in the EF.

Read my last post….why would a Dassault VP claim otherwise on an India-speceif deal. I am sure he was not lying to get one over his rival, as these things are easily verifiable by the Indians.

You dismiss reality and keep to be the ignorant guy. GPS and MIDS are known factual and critical systems for the Rafale. Which US components except for the MIDS and GPS are critical for the Typhoon’s exportability? You can’t name any, instead you repeat posting the “Eurofighter required US approval” thing which very much doesn’t prove the opposite of what we are saying here. So keep to be the ignorant and dismiss reality.
The fact you haven’t heared such stories about the Rafale, is that Dassault hasn’t secured any order for this type. If Dassault wants to sell the Rafale with military GPS and MIDS they are prone to US sanctions as is Eurofighter. Of course you can do without MIDS and GPS and as the Rafale is not dependant on US weapons systems Dassault can offer it without US sanctions. Eurofighter could do so as well, but needs a BVR missile to be really independent from US export restrictions.

February 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm in reply to: IAF – News & Discussion – II #2457923

MM11
Participant

The GPS is another issue, but there are alternatives based on COTS technology, & despite occasional fits of insanity among the arms trade control people in the USA, they do mostly understand that they can’t ban the sale to a foreign government of technology which is already being sold to the civilian population of that country.

Nah that’s not completely true, basically everyone could use civilian GPS, but military GPS is a different matter.

February 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm in reply to: IAF – News & Discussion – II #2457927

MM11
Participant

Sintra, the basic FACT is that American government permission is needed to sell the Eurofighter. While the French do not need it for selling the Rafale. Neither do the Americans need EU approval for selling SH and F 18.

Like I said I believe Dassault when it says the Rafale is 100% French. Whatever American components it have are not critical. Or senior officals of Dassault won’t be making that claim.

Sorry to say that, but you are either blind or ignorant or maybe both. GPS is owned by the US, so every customer which wants to use has to receive approval from the US government! That the GPS receivers themself are produced in France is true, but that doesn’t give the customer the license and required codes to operate that system. Simple fact and if you don’t get it, your problem.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 158 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 →