dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,961 through 3,975 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Will the Eurofighter flop? #2456462
    MadRat
    Participant

    Can we please not ban star49………….
    How much rubbish do we have to read before someone gets rid of him? He is probably one of the main factors as to why this forum has gone down hill over the last few months.

    qft/ditto

    in reply to: Future of countermeasures on military aircraft? #2457943
    MadRat
    Participant

    There is a reason the Americans are going AMRAAM-centric for the future. The future looks bright, and shades don’t help…

    in reply to: Effect of volume on BVR combat #2457962
    MadRat
    Participant

    Since you’re talking semi-active radar missiles on the Foxhound and inertia flight to the target, the best bet to shake them would have probably been to fly on the beam long enough to get away from the seeker before it goes semi-active. The missile would have lost considerable range to maneuver themselves like that, probably making them ineffective against a fighter altogether. The key would be that the fighter itself had to get off course and accelerate like crazy to avoid the missile, thereby getting the figurative win in the situation.

    I could see situations where the Foxhounds escorts tactical strike aircraft in to their targets to literally plow the airborne defenses out of the way on the way in. NATO would have had to respond with fixed site defenses of some kind to counter the threat.

    MadRat
    Participant

    If the F-18E/F doesn’t get new intakes what use is a 20% boost to the F414?

    in reply to: Taiwan's IDF Fleet #2457974
    MadRat
    Participant

    Does the F-CK-1 ever perform at airshows? Would be nice to see some youtube footage of it doing something with technical merit, not just a simple flyby.

    in reply to: Britain considers JSF pullout #2459254
    MadRat
    Participant

    Price explains the slow uptake of 5th generation designs. The U.S. programs are the envy of the world.

    in reply to: Iraq looking to buy F-16's??? #2459667
    MadRat
    Participant

    Wide area cellular communications jamming.

    MadRat
    Participant

    Saying the J-8II resembles a MiG-23 is like saying a sparrow resembles an owl. The J-8II and Su-15 have identical lines whereas the MiG-23 only resembles the J-8II in that it is a jet fighter. The MiG-23 is a distinctive Mikoyan design. The Su-15 is a trademark Sukhoi design. The J-8II definitely resembles the Sukhoi style, well, because its a clone of an Su-15. I do see resemblance in the J-8II perhaps with the MiG-23 inlets, but nothing else seems even remotely common. The landing gear, the nose angle, the fore-section as a whole, etc. do not resemble the Mikoyan designs. The nose section does resemble Sukhoi designs of the 80’s and 90’s, specifically the Su-24’s nose cone shape. And coincidentally the Su-24 intakes look remarkably like the J-8II. So the likelihood they cloned anything but the inlets from the MiG-23 seems unlikely. It looks like they had direct Sukhoi help.

    Long winded replies with lots of unrelated pictures do not prove a point MiG-23MLD. People have been trying to get that point across to you for ages. At least the picture buffs get something out of your posts.

    in reply to: Letters from the Gulf War '90-91 #2462267
    MadRat
    Participant

    Can someone post the ip of the website. My dns service doens’t recognize that name.

    MadRat
    Participant

    Looking at closeups of both Su-15 and J-8II versus closeups of the J-8I reveals the J-8II to be clearly built directly from the Su-15 design. There are too many common denominators for the Chinese to come up with something similar, these two designs are nearly identical except for the air intakes and nose. The changes are reminiscent of how the Chinese progressed the MiG-21 design into the F-7 offshoots.

    Perhaps an Su-15 crashed into their territory. Maybe Sukhoi engineers worked directly with them. Whatever the case, anyone that does a detailed analysis of the two will come to the conclusion that the J-8II is clearly not an indigenous offshoot of the F-7 program.

    MadRat
    Participant

    It’s very interesting to consider the history of the J-8 programme, especially the J-8II.
    If you start with a Mig-21 & enlarge it, give it twin engines, then a nosecone, eventually, you get something similar to a Su-15!
    The Chinese could have saved so much time if they had started with a Su-15 & who knows what that aircraft could have evolved into 😉

    The original J-8 looked a lot different from the J-8II than the J-8II looks different than the Su-15. After doing a little research both the Su-15 and J-8II actually use the same engine. Wp-13 is a license-built Tumansky R-13! Amazing that tidbit never stood out before. Clearly the J-8II is a direct offshoot of the Su-15 program and this eventually must have led to the offer for Flanker cooperation. It all makes sense now.

    MadRat
    Participant

    This is why I asked for the G talk to stop in this thread. It’s a topic all to its own and you guys can meander all over the place. This thread was supposed to be Flagon vs Finback; not G ratings concerning Kfir, MiG-23’s, F-4’s, etc.

    MadRat
    Participant

    G ratings are a buffer against materials fatigue, not necessarily for determining a break point. More stress means the materials wear out more quickly. That’s all you need to worry about in the G ratings.

    Now, for the sake of decency let’s drop the whole G argument.

    MadRat
    Participant

    Just how much can you strengthen something that is so long and so narrow? I have a feeling the long slender shape isn’t real conducive to high-G maneuvers by default.

    Has anyone taken a long hard look at the J-8II and compared it structurally with the Su-15? I’ve just been skimming over pictures and find their resemblance from the intakes on back to the rudders too close to be by chance. Could Sukhoi have sold their flight data on the Flagon design to the Chinese to fast track the J-8II program? I’ve found plenty of examples on airliners.net and its just too coincidental. The tail caps are the same lines. The wing fences are identical placement. The wings themselves are exactly in the same places. The rivet lines look strikingly similar from about mid-wing back to the tail pipes. The tail is damn near identical. Even the access ports are too much alike. The cockpit, except for the extended spine that reaches tail to pit on the J-8II, is also identical. Surely Shenyang copied the later Su-15 design.

    MadRat
    Participant

    Must admit when I made the original topic my thought was that the J-8II was largely old technology using semi-active missiles and an indigenous radar set. Looks like I should have done a little more research than none at all.

    Structures break with the forces applied upon them, so if you are going to make more agile the MiG-23M, you do a trick you lighten it up and you increase the thrust, so now you can have an aircraft that has the same 91000kgf that equals not 7Gs but 8Gs, since the aircraft is lighter then its 7Gs weight is lighter.

    If you lighten up the load in your 7G turn then you still are exerting the same number of G’s on the airframe in a 7G turn. The overall force on the plane may change with its weight change, but a 7G turn is a 7G turn.

    was it the fighter involved in the korean 747 incident?

    The Su-15 was the one that downed the Korean 747, flight 007. I think it may the one that downed another 747 years before that incident, but the plane was able to land on a frozen lake and the Soviets released the people involved when it was clear that flight was not a hostile intruder. Technically the latter plane was not shot down because the crew picked the landing location. Another incident involved a CL-44 in which the Su-15 clipped the wing and ended up taking himself out.

    The J-8II was the plane involved with clipping an American EP-3 spyplane.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,961 through 3,975 (of 4,651 total)