seahawkNot necessarily. It is Soviet and Russian tradition to apply minor and major upgrades to equipment during overhauls. The SMT upgrade for example include both replacing and upgrading avionics and an overhaul of the airframe and engines to zero hours. The most basic SMT upgrade with extra fuel, self diagnostics systems, digital Mil Std avionics, ability to generate false targets for training purposes but otherwise no change of radar (except expansion of air to air weapon types to include all the R-27 types and also R-77) or engines and perhaps the new 4 weapon pylon wings, which would result in basically a reduction in maintainence costs by 40% and a minor improvement in air to air performance and retaining the very basic air to ground capability.
For that the price was $6 million US per aircraft. Even for the reduction in maintainence costs it would be worth it. For 5 aircraft that is $30 million, so 3 years worth of savings will reduce operational costs. Am pretty sure it includes a redesigned cockpit display setup too with LCDs instead of dials.
Thar stil is an upgrade. Not a full SMT but yet an upgrad.e An overhaul would just be bringing the aircraft back to airworthy status and doing necessary depot level maintenance.
seahawkThats the only part of this whole thing that makes any sense.
Unfortunately yes. The MiG-21 are also old and would need to be overhauled, while offering less capability and less training for the pilots. The only bad thing about the MiG-29 is, that there is only one UB left.
seahawkDon´t get so exited. Barracuda is an EADS project financed by EADS money that is aiming at keeping up with other european firms, that are researching into future UACVs. It is neither more advanced nor much more closer to service entry, then any other european project. the test modell is just larger. There is genuine interest by the Luftwaffe to use an UACV as a future replacement for ECR and recce Tornados.
It is wearing the german and spanish flags because most mof the tesing will be done in both countries, neither of which is financing the project at the moment.
seahawkHonestly wit hOnur you can´t tell. We have lots of ONUR traffic at DUS, and sometimes A300 shows up for an A321, a MD80 for an A320, …..
seahawkBarely enough to get them airworthy again.
seahawkI don´t know if it is a wise move, talking about an uprated oand TVC version now, when even the vanilla version is not jet flying in operational service and still is far away from achieving this status.
And I understand the articel so, that PW means that they ca nturn the Kaveri into a world class engine and not that is is one already.
seahawkHow could anybody to chose the MiG-35 after having bought the MiG-29K ? The miG is the obvious choice.
seahawkPlease that is not a way to say a lineage.
The Russian Su-17 and Su-22 are a lineage, the Su-9, Su-11 and MiG-21 represent another lineage, TsAGI worked a common design concept that Mikoyan and Sukhoi adapted to especific requirements, the MiG-29, Su-27/30/33,35/37 and Su-34 are another lineage all come from the same TsAGI aerodynamic common configuration.
The Dassault Mirage is another lineage.
Mirage I, Mirage II, Mirage III, Mirage IV, Mirage V/50, Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Mirage F1 and the Mirage G8 all are a lineage named MIRAGE
The MiG-25 and MiG-31 are a lineage.
the Tu-160 and B-1A also come from the same aerodynamic fashion for bombers in the 1970s despite they are build by different companies and countries.
you must be dreaming to say that the F-4 gave way to the F-22.
First the F-22 is a stealth fighter which in fact share more traits with the F-117 and the B-2 than with the F-4.
the F-15 has more in common with the A-5, F-14 and MiG-25 than with the F-4.
The F-4 has an ancestry in the F-101 and F-3H-2
The real F-4 ancestors and relatives are thoses, check that those aircraft are real ancestors that already had all the features that the F-4 has and that were further perfected in the F-4
The F-4 is the jewel in the crown of all the naval Mc Donnell aircraft where their engines were a separate element independent of the Fuselage, you can see that the F-3H-2, F-101 Voodoo and F-4 had an independent fuselage from their engines where the vertical fin and tailplanes are fixed ala Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B
No the F-15 is the logical next step in the F-4 lineage. Apart from the twin tailfins it resembles the F-4 layout in many ways. Especially tail surfaces and wing layout. Engine position. Engine numbers. The F-22 is the next step up from a F-15.
It might be shocking but design wise even the mighty F-14 has some parts from an F-4.
It is not just about the form.
Btw deltas are not deltas. There is huge difference from a F-102 / Mirage III to a Mirage 2000 to a EF or Rafale.
Conventional stable delta, relaxed stability delta, close coupled rcanards with relaxed stability delta design.
On the other hand I must say, that the VG layout of the MiG-23 was actually even less succesfull, while the conventional design of the F-4 is still flying today.
seahawkWhat lineage? the F-22 has no commonality with the F-4, i see no commonality in the F-15 and F-4
Really no comonality.
2 engines in a big fighter with long range and BVr missiles. High power to weight ratio for a heavy. Even the F-14 has a direct lineage to the F-4, although they used the vg wings to adress some porblems encountered in the F-4.
You just look at the outer form of an aircraft, but that is tellig nothing.
seahawktrue but the NV did not have the different types of aircraft that the Soviet have,niether the Number of jet aircraft.
Saying the americans faced the best defended city in the world it is a lie, Moscow was better defended even Berlin, the point is that statement is to give a excuse for the poor results a super power achieved.
So which aircraft, other then the MiGs they had, could the NVN have needed. YAk-28 ? The MiGs were in a perfect enviroment for them to work.
Berlin better defended – I do not think so. Especially which part of Berlin would you exactly mean ? 😀
Moscow, yes. But then there would be few targets in the world with as many defenses per km² as Hanoi.
seahawkHEHEHEHEHEH strongest defences in the world :rolleyes: heheheheheheheh come on
the strongest defences in the world in the 1960s were NORAD AND THE SOVIET UNION, or NATO or the WARSAW pact, but Vietnam never fielded so many fighters and SAMs as the Soviet Union or the US did.If the Americans suffered so many losses is because the Vietnamese had quality in their Russian made weapons and a strong will to defeat the US
Strongest defenses, next to Moscow probably yes. Sure the Soviet Union and the WarPac had more Sams, more AAA and many more fighters, but they also had to defend much more territory. The NVN did defend Hanoi and that is about it. Further South no SAMs were encountered until very late in the war and no fighters were seen right until the final offensive in 1975. So in defenses per km² the area around Hanoi was probably one of the best defended targets in the world.
seahawkThe F-4 has never lead to such large family of aircraft derivatives, the Mirage III excellence lead to a great array of fighters such as Mirage V/50, Mirage IV, the Kfir C2, Dennel Cheetah, ENAER Pantera, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, Mirage 4000 and Rafale.
The MiG-23 only sprung the MiG-27 and the Russians had two other aircraft with similar aerodynamic configuration: the Su-24 and Tu-22M
The Su-24, MiG-23 and Tu-22M2 are basicly the same aerodynamic configuration tailored to different military needs
Really how about that lineage ?
F-4 -> F-15 -> F-22
seahawkI thought a major reason for a visual ID was because of the risk of fratricide, in an environment where most of the planes in the air were US? And the AIM-7 had a wider launch envelope (in terms of G being pulled by the plane when it was fired) & better off-axis lock-on than the AIM-9s available at the time. Or is that wrong?
Though not carrying any Sidewinders does seem strange.
Not that I´m aware of any advantages of the AIM-7 in a dogfight. The AIM-4 was a dog, but the AIM-9 was the prefered weapon of choice by most pilots. The minimum launch distace of the AIM-7 made it very harrd to employ in a turning ifhgt.
seahawkThat is what would have probably happened in a war with Russia.. Russians would have been able to replace their air defenses roughly as quickly as they would have been destroyed by ARMs.
No it would have not been the same. Can you imagine that a war with Russia a mission order would have said. “Attack the airbase, do not hit the terminal as it has a civil use, do not hit the runway as it might have civil use, do not hit the POL storage, do not hit the westenr side, …” SAM sites for exampel where off limits, when placed near temples, schools, etc. fpr most of the war. So it was not just about replacing, it was about not being hit in the first place. And that means not being hit, because some politician in Washington thought, that it might anger the Vietnamese if they would be really hit.
What sense would it make to fire an AIM-7 from WVR on an An-2, then? That must have been the ultimate waste.. You can list multiple kills like this..
It made no sense. That is the point. But that were the ROEs. F-4s were sent north with AIM-7s only and the ROEs demanded a visual ID before an enemy plane could be engaged. Their are numerous pilots books about the war in Nam, which describe exactly that.
I agree.. But you need to present the power as whole.. America is weakest not in its military power, know how or technological level, but in its democracy and absolute reluctancy of the public to accept losses, as well as absolute worldwide media coverage. Simply they cannot do what they want even if they desired to, because the whole world is watching. You have to take that into account, as well. And I think it is good thing..
That is a good thing, yes. But we should not forget about those facts if judging a machien used to fight in such war. The numerous loses were in fact politicaly accepted. Any plane would have seen numerous loses under that circumstances. I personally prefer to judge the F-4 by the October War and the IPGW. Where it shows, that it was as good as any fighter it met, but still was the better ground pounder and better multi role aircraft.
It is not the best fighter, it never was from the early 70ies on (and even perhaps never was, considering the lovely F-8 Crusader, MiG-21MF and the Mirage III), but overall it was still best combination of air to air and air to ground firepower available until the F-16C and F-15E entered US service.
seahawkLoo at the Linebacker campaign and how losses developed after a few days of real fighting. After a few days US losses were clearly reduced and air superiority to supermacy was achieved.
The F-4 suffered no excpetional high losses during linebacker considering the number of planes used and the fact that Hanoi was one of the best defended targets on earth.
Before and even after Linebacker the US pilots faced one major problem and that is that they had to face the full functioning air defense system over and over again. Kind of day one over and over again. Just take the losses of the IIPGW (Desert Storm) that happened in the first 3 days and multiply them with 400 then you get an ideao how many aircraft would have been lost under Nam conditions.
An Aim-7 kill does not mean it was fired from BVR range. US ROEs demanded a visual ID for most of the war. Yet still the AIM-7 was used, but not to its full potential. On the few occations in which the US used its capabilities to the full extent they dominated the MiGs. (Robin Olds and his Wolfpack mission etc.)
Loooking at the Nam war without recongnising the politcal influence is simply not doing justice to the men and machines that fought.
Sign In
