dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,506 through 2,520 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Mirage 3/5 v F1 comparison #2330629
    MadRat
    Participant

    The purchase of the 13 Mirage F1 look pretty solid, actually. They are getting twenty-five modernized airframes (12 single seat F1, a two-seat F1, and 12 M2K) for under $150 million. And they have been offered MICA. Rumblings about Exocet for the F1’s. That’s a nightmare scenario for the RAF.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2331743
    MadRat
    Participant

    The French establishment is much easier to place confederates within their system in order to gleam negotiation details from their core team. The Eurofighter consortium is much more difficult to measure because of the obfuscated nature of their decision making. Considerable power has been placed in the hands of the negotiators for said EF team, which gives them considerable flexibility when they need to raise the stakes.

    in reply to: Pros and Cons of different types of AWACS lay out #2333056
    MadRat
    Participant

    Towed array on general auxiliary aircraft using RATs to power each segment and data by laser fiber.

    Protects aircraft from HOJ. No excessive power draw on electrical system. Adaptable to non-specialized aircraft.

    in reply to: French Use of the F-8E(FN) #2369415
    MadRat
    Participant

    Possible difference if the F-8E had used French parts in them.

    Specifications
    Length: 54′ 3″ (16.5 m)
    Height: 15′ 9″ (4.8 m)
    Wingspan: 35′ 8″ (10.8 m)
    Wingarea: 350.0 sq ft (32.5 sq m)
    Empty Weight: 17,836 lb (8,088 kg)
    Gross Weight: 34,100 lb (15,464 kg)

    Propulsion
    No. of Engines: 1
    Powerplant: SNECMA M53-5 afterburning turbofan
    Dry thrust: 12,230 lbf (54.0 kN)
    Afterburner: 19,400 lbf (86.3 kN)

    Performance
    Range: 1,350 miles (2,200 km)
    Combat radius: 425 miles (675 km) in hi-lo-hi attack with 2,000 kg warload
    Cruise Speed: 575 mph (925 km/h)
    Max Speed: 1,375 mph (2,200 km/h)
    Climb: 27,200 ft/min (8,290 m/min)
    Ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,775 m)

    General characteristics
    Crew: 1
    Payload: 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) of weapons
    Empty weight: 17,541 lb (7,956 kg)
    Loaded weight: 29,000 lb (13,000 kg)
    Wing area: 375 ft² (34.8 m²)
    Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft² (377.6 kg/m²)
    Fuel capacity: 1,325 US gal (5,020 L)
    Hardpoints:
    2× side fuselage mounted Y-pylons (for mounting AIM-9 Sidewinders and SNEB rockets)
    2× underwing pylon stations holding up to 4,000 lb (2,000 kg) of payload

    Armament
    Guns: 4× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 cannons in lower fuselage, 125 rounds per gun

    Rockets:
    4× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm Mk 32 Zuni rockets) on Y-pylons or
    4× Matra Type 155 rocket pods (each with 18× SNEB 68mm RPs) on Y-pylons or
    2x Matra JL-100 drop tank/rocket pack (combines 250L drop tank with rocket pod containing 19× SNEB 68 mm RPs)
    Missiles:
    Air-to-air missiles:
    4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or Matra R.550 Magic on Y-pylons and/or
    2× Matra R530 (only one per cheek mounting; IR and SARH versions available) underwing
    Air-to-surface missiles:
    2× AGM-12 Bullpup underwing or
    2x AS-30 missile, which uses MCLOS guidance via a radio command link underwing or
    2x AS.37 Martel or AGM-45 Shrike Anti-radiation missile underwing (ARM)
    Bombs:
    12× 113kg BL5 bombs underwing or
    8× 250kg EU2 bombs underwing or
    4× 400kg T200 bombs underwing or
    2× 1000kg BL4 bombs underwing

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2369955
    MadRat
    Participant

    Unless it has a sustained or terminal source of energy it’s a good chance to be used that way.

    in reply to: Theory behind allocation of Soviet Nuclear warheads…? #1795799
    MadRat
    Participant

    A good chunk of your destructive force is the medium moving out of ground zero at the speed of sound or better, then returning to fill the void. The heat isn’t going to disintegrate the airfield. A cratering warhead is focusing all that heat at a slightly below ground point and that creates the tunneling effect that is much more destructive to the surface.

    in reply to: Chinese HQ-16 (LY-80) Surface to Air Missile System #1795834
    MadRat
    Participant

    Cold launchers are reusable tubes.

    in reply to: Theory behind allocation of Soviet Nuclear warheads…? #1795836
    MadRat
    Participant

    The runway bed ultimately survives. You can fix superficial damage in tens of hours. A crater the size of a village in the middle of the facility is not worthy of repair.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2371475
    MadRat
    Participant

    There exist a relation between weight & cost, and EF weigh more

    That certainly is true whenever metals or composites are concerned.

    in reply to: International Super Hornet #2371479
    MadRat
    Participant

    It would look like a real go getter with the bigger engine.

    The best line art I have is the -C model. The -E model would look even better.

    in reply to: Mirage 3/5 v F1 comparison #2371487
    MadRat
    Participant

    Perhaps you were missing a ‘7’ and meant Su-27.

    in reply to: International Super Hornet #2371553
    MadRat
    Participant

    I’d much rather see them market the new version (is it F/A-18H, F/A-18J, or F/A-18SE?) using an F135 engine rather than EPE’s. You cut the maintenance costs down and you simplify the future supply chain. Why push a new engine variant that costs so much when they can use a super one that’s already OTS?

    in reply to: Theory behind allocation of Soviet Nuclear warheads…? #1795839
    MadRat
    Participant

    You do not take out the runway with an airburst, the airburst is anti-personnel and destroys the unshielded equipment and facilities. A runway is too deep and sturdy to take out like that. You destroy the hardened facility with subterranean ground bursts, shallow penetration before detonation. Leaves a huge crater.

    in reply to: A-5s for Dedicated CAS #2372104
    MadRat
    Participant

    The weapons are already proven in real combat, and they are truly gruesome against a force that has no countermeasures. Its mixed results against countermeasures, but to counter them you leave yourself open to other tactics that are just as gruesome. So when the guy above says massed formations are out of date, equivalent to ‘infantry squares & massed cavalry charges’, he’s stating the truth.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2372405
    MadRat
    Participant

    Certainly not to move a cone tuned to one frequency.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,506 through 2,520 (of 4,651 total)