dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,656 through 2,670 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: There's been an accident at TsAGI #2336568
    MadRat
    Participant

    Tragedy. But they will rebuild it better than it ever was.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2341312
    MadRat
    Participant

    Don’t underestimate the Chinese as a whole. They have more natural geniuses than the sum of all geniuses residing in the developed world.

    in reply to: Foxbat revamped with French parts #2342687
    MadRat
    Participant

    The SE’s popped up, painted their target, read off the information to their wingman, dropped back under the defensive radar coverage while their wingman fired in the direction fed to him. Not ideal aim, but the Exocet used INS and a timer to fly a predetermined distance and then went terminal. The Argentinians used radar seekers, but Exocet also came in electro-optical versions. If Exocet missed finding a target in a predetermined slice of time it did a search pattern. If it found more than one target it picked the biggest target, which is why the AC was struck.

    in reply to: Bin Laden Raid: Stealth Helicopter Mods? #2343276
    MadRat
    Participant

    We know from leaks within the WH that the SEALS were not alone and Delta participated. With that said you should be able to gather the notion that more came in and out on the ground than in the air. Since the extraction was not contested they probably never knew there were more players in the game. SOCOM doesn’t send the boys in without making contingency plans.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2343285
    MadRat
    Participant

    The more I see the J-20 the more it reminds me of several other aircraft. It has a tail reminiscent of a McDonnell-Douglas design, the canards of the Rafale, the nose of the Raptor, the engine size of the Foxhound, the intake bumps of the JF-17, and the wing form of the J-10. It’s a ‘Frankenjet’.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2343646
    MadRat
    Participant

    My initial guess of seventy to seventy-five feet isn’t too far off. And to think others suggested it was the same length as the J-10.

    in reply to: Foxbat revamped with French parts #2346104
    MadRat
    Participant

    The claim specifically mentioned French engines. I can’t imagine any that would have been a net gain performance-wise.

    in reply to: Boeing E-4: Unexpected in Afghanistan #2347773
    MadRat
    Participant

    E-4 was always affectionately called the White Whale AFAIK.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2348113
    MadRat
    Participant

    I believe the Viggen would have been competing with F-16’s. No way they were less expensive to operate. And they were competing against the likes of MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-17, etc. Caught between two ideologies and no market space save for maybe independents and neutral countries. South Africa would have been interesting, but they were in turmoil.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2349044
    MadRat
    Participant

    You’re probably right, I am going off memory and thinking the F-4 was seventy foot long and each J79 had 18K of thrust versus 26K for the Viggen.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2349058
    MadRat
    Participant

    Why are people stating such low figures for the F-4’s turbojets? The Viggen didn’t always have as much power as is being stated so why compare early F-4 figures to mature Viggen figures? If you compare late F-4 to late Viggen or early Viggen to F-4’s of it’s era then it’s a much bigger gap.

    And the Viggen operationally did not use two of it’s pylons because they caused too much stress on the wings. So in reality it’s a much wider gap between the F-4 and Viggen when it comes to payload. And I’m not seeing where a 55-ish foot long Viggen is only 17% shorter than a 70-ish foot long F-4.

    The Viggen had a turbofan which gave it more relative power in a low level flight profile. The F-4’s turbojets were more optimal for flight at higher altitudes. We aren’t comparing Viggen to more modern fighters, we are comparing it to the F-4 which makes the difference significant.

    And I didn’t mention the Mirage III as the one better for comparison. I said Viggen was more like the MiG-23. And it is.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2349519
    MadRat
    Participant

    Maybe the Viggen had 60-65% of the F-4’s thrust, which is significantly less. The F-4 used turbojets, the Viggen a modified turbofan. The F-4 was about a third longer than the Viggen. The F-4 had a monster radar in comparison. The F-4 had a huge payload in comparison. Not really seeing the similarity.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2350286
    MadRat
    Participant

    The Viggen was significantly smaller than a Phantom, but not ‘compact’, when compared to its single-seat predecessors & contemporaries. It’s markedly bigger & heavier than Mirage III or F1, Draken, Jaguar, etc. It’s intermediate between them & a Phantom.

    I don’t believe the Mirage (III or F1) was much shorter than the Viggen. Sure it was bigger and heavier. But it didn’t take up much more real estate in comparison to the Mirages. The F-4 took up significantly more room while on the ground.

    in reply to: Saab 37 Viggen Questions #2350939
    MadRat
    Participant

    Saying the Viggen was comparable to the F-4 is laughable. The F-4 was a huge two-seat fighter while the Viggen was a compact single seater. The MiG-23 to Viggen comparison is much more valid and realistic. I cannot fathom how anyone could relegate the F-4 to such a lowly status when it’s still flying today because it’s not irrelevant after some upgrades.

    in reply to: MMRCA News and Discussion 8 #2353356
    MadRat
    Participant

    whats the cheapest weapon (besides the gun) that the Rafale uses ?

    Mk82

Viewing 15 posts - 2,656 through 2,670 (of 4,651 total)