dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,476 through 2,490 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Gripen for Switzerland #2311895
    MadRat
    Participant

    What weapons will their NG carry?

    in reply to: Quadbike Indian Air Force Thread Part 18 #2313012
    MadRat
    Participant

    I wonder if India can afford to contain so many aircraft in the next seven or eight years time let alone twenty. They have a real danger of fracturing their force structure if they continue on this trend.

    in reply to: Rafale news part XI #2314829
    MadRat
    Participant

    Replace the lightweight F-5 with a twin engine front-line fighter during budget crisis? Absurd.

    in reply to: F-106 internal bay #2314924
    MadRat
    Participant

    You’re right, the actual gun is tiny.

    http://www.f-106deltadart.com/weapons/vulcan20mm-1.jpg

    I was distracted by the small cooling vane under the gun. It looked to be something else in that diagram.

    in reply to: MMRCA for Malaysia #2315040
    MadRat
    Participant

    Here is an idea!
    Su-30s with GE-F110 engines!

    They would be just as likely to order the MiG-35 with EJ200’s.

    in reply to: F-106 internal bay #2315486
    MadRat
    Participant

    Is that a reconn pod?

    in reply to: Rafale news part XI #2315804
    MadRat
    Participant

    If the Gripen shares common engine logistics then it’s a big plus IMHO. Too bad Dassault didn’t have the luxury of an M88-derived light fighter to help spur engine price efficiencies. I’ve said it several times in the past that they should have fielded an F.1 that used the M88. The F.1 is far from useless.

    in reply to: F-106 internal bay #2316778
    MadRat
    Participant

    The F-16 outperformed it in about every category save range and sustained velocity. An interceptor needs to be able to scoot hundreds of miles in short order. The F-106A traded its maneuverability and speed performance potential for range and an exceptional flight stability. Being fifteen foot longer and about a yard taller gave the F-106A plenty of room for fuel, an internal bay with simplified mechanical trapezes for its missiles, and spaces for a lot of electronics. The F-16 goes a few hundred in short order, but then it has to find fuel or turn home.

    in reply to: F-106 internal bay #2316862
    MadRat
    Participant

    I always liked the F-106A as the best of the century fighters. (Although I like the F-105 more, I see it as the tactical bomber it truly is and not as a fighter.) I never understood why the forces that be couldn’t build some kind of an F-106C program as a dedicated ANG solution to cover the airspace over the CONUS. Simple, affordable, dependable, and something that did the job well. It didn’t need to carry an AWG-9 weapons system or be multirole. It could have utilized OTS missiles like the AIM-9 and AIM-7, later adopting AIM-120. Don’t get me wrong, the F-16 is a fine choice for the ANG today. I just think the F-16 program has ballooned to be a jack of all trades and to redesign it as an interceptor at this point would not be politically acceptable. I’m not a fan of the fixed intake that’s optimized for strike duty. There is no internal weapons bay. It doesn’t have an IRST; perhaps an aircraft dedicated to the interceptor role should carry a twin IRST/TCS chin like the F-14D. The F-16’s with CFTs sort of attain the range necessary, but the basic model is too multidimensional now its become anything but simple.

    The F-35A is not remotely a step in that direction.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2318786
    MadRat
    Participant

    The L-15 seems to be in the same mold as the Yak-130, but its more in the MiG-19 class IMHO. Certainly is a step up from the FC-1 as far as raw engine power, but I would favor the latter as a warplane. The FC-1 has a nose more suited for a radar and it looks like its made for wartime when it comes to the logistical sense. The L-15 looks like a design built for peacetime. I guess the idea that a trainer has beefy engines in it sounds good in theory, just doesn’t seem like it would be good for sales.

    in reply to: single engine attrition rate vs twin engine #2318878
    MadRat
    Participant

    The problem with the loss of an engine is compounded when you lose electrical power. It sounds like most of the twins only generate power from one of the engines, which would make the statistic for lower losses compared to single engine fighters being roughly at a 1:4 ratio even more amazing.

    in reply to: single engine attrition rate vs twin engine #2320610
    MadRat
    Participant

    A centerline fuel pod with a miniature engine, the bare minimum to stay airborne – fudge factor included of course – to limp another hundred miles or so. Doesn’t have to be used in war-time, just a safety factor for the single-engine aircraft during routine flights.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2321980
    MadRat
    Participant

    Has anything been developing with the L-15?

    in reply to: Mirage 2000-5Mk2 vs Gripen-C/D #2322483
    MadRat
    Participant

    The wing is pointed and has a sawtooth edge with a rail or missile inside of the wingtip. The second pic is clearly a Gripen, the first doesn’t look like it is IMO.

    in reply to: Mirage 2000-5Mk2 vs Gripen-C/D #2322787
    MadRat
    Participant

    Looks like a Kfir. And what kind of M2K HUD is it?

Viewing 15 posts - 2,476 through 2,490 (of 4,651 total)