The Egyptian MiG-23ML using Atolls (IR and SARH) were not super fighters, but they had far better GCI support than the Saudis whom depended largely on the Mark I eyeball.
Not the Saudi ones, because they were pretty restricted in operational capability. It wouldn’t have been a turkeyshoot by any means, but it was favourable to the MiGs.
Thats nice, too. I wish we could get some of those to prop up on display. Plenty of Tomcats, Falcons, Eagles, Hornets, and such in my area. No Foxbats.
F-16/101 would have been interesting. Back when the P&W F100 was around 20k lb st thrust wet the GEF101 was around 30k st thrust wet. The F-16 wing didn’t really have the size to make the F101 performance cost-effective. That, and the F100 already put pilots to their physical limitations. However, when the F-16XL developed wing came about the over-powered engine would no longer have been overkill.
It may not have mattered a whole lot once F-16 was cleared for the IAF, but before then they were pretty much dependent on too heavy of fighters and the high costs associated with maintaining multiple types for their needs. The Kfir allowed them to focus on one engine for the bulk of their fleet, as it used the same J79 and it’s Phantom II’s. The Lavi project probably would have been the basis for Phantom re-engine program that would have extended the life of that fleet. Once the F-16 was approved they could refocus on the F-15 and F-16 combination. Exporting F-16 to kill the Lavi was about saving American jobs and control of the market. Can you imagine if the Lavi project succeeded and non-American warplanes proliferated?
Remember these tests weren’t for the seeker, they were for the concept. The goal wasn’t to strike the target, but rather to hit its beacon. As with most early developmental tests before the seeker catches up to the design a beacon-homing guidance section simulates the real world expectations of how it should work. This allows them to record data to optimize the seeker.
If the tech was available during F-22 design it would have made it in instead. EODAS is an affordable option and addresses the weaknesses found in MAWS. Frankly they should be adapting its use on older aircraft if possible.
No, I have no interest to harass you. I went back and looked at the picture in question. Its a simple strain gauge the original conversation was about. The extra cover piece nearby doesn’t look atypical, so the conversation was entirely about the strain gauge. A couple of the fellas pretty well covered the issues why the test airframe would have included it. The strain gauge likely measures engine bay alignment during TVC manuevers. The stresses and oscillations are probably pretty important to measure.
Seriously, you are language challenged when you try to communicate your message in English. This is an English only forum and shouldn’t participate with such a limited grasp of the language. Please refrain from further discussion.
Sign In
