crobatoThere are many F-16 variants and even subvariants, without official results you are just expeculating. late F-16 blocks are re engined and have a thrust of 32000lb, basicly an engine as powerful as the Russian 117S that powers the new Su-35BM or 2 tonnes thrust more than the original F-16A
So without manual based information you won`t get to a realitic evaluation.
The Russian jounalist said F-16C and MiG-29SMT but did not go beyond the F-16E/F block 60 and MiG-35 for a reason
Speculation? LOL. That’s common knowledge. And besides you don’t know seem to know how turn rates are achieved.
crobatoSo, tell me your not saying that bigger types have better roll rates. So, they won the day……………
No. The Thunderbolt did, because it has this big radial engine, one of the biggest used in the war, whose gyroscopic effects enabled to flip quite fast in _one_ direction. It won’t roll fast towards the other direction.
The Phantom had a low aspect wing with a fairly narrow wing span. So did the Mirage III.
For the most part, big planes suffer from lower roll rates.
The P-38 actually disadvantaged by faster rolling German fighters. Hence it was replaced in the theater by P-47s and P-51s.
The Me-110, although faster than the Hurricane, also suffered in this regard.
For the most part, the planes with the highest roll rates are planes are smaller planes single engined planes with the engine in the plane’s bore, or two smaller engines set in the fuselage in the plane’s bore, and not outboard in the plane’s wings. Then its matched to wings with lower wingspan.
Examples
F-16
Mirage 2000
Gripen
Rafale
Typhoon
In teen fighters, its like:
F-16 > F-18 > F-15 > F-14.
crobatoJust as types like the F4U Corsair, P-38 Lightning, and P-47 Thunderbolt were entering service. At this time the Japanese still had highly experienced Zero Pilots. Yet, they were over come by less experienced American Pilots. Flying larger and heavier US Fighters. None of which were more agile…………….These contest were purely WVR fights. Yet, they prevailed!!!! Now today most combat happens at BVR. Yet. your J-10 beats the larger more capable Flanker. With a more powerful radar and better avionic……..not to mention more speed and longer range!
Scooter, you need to learn more about the fighter tactics used by the Americans against the Japanese. The Zero might have a tighter turning circle, but the Thunderbolts and Hellcats had superior rates of roll. Thunderbolts also used their better roll rate against the Me-109s with success; but against the FW-190 it was a lot tougher because the FW-190 had the fastest roll rate of any WWII fighter.
The Spitfire had a tighter turning circle but the FW-190 had a superior rate of roll. At a period when the pilots had more or less equal ability, the FW-190 had a better kill rate over the Spitfire.
The Brits using Spitfires tried to turn inside Zeros. They lost. Shows you its all about tactics.
The P-38 didn’t roll very well. while it used its speed against the Zeros, against the much faster FW-190 in speed and roll, the P-38 had much more trouble. It is interesting that the P-38 actually had a tighter turn than the FW-190.
Planes with better roll rates in WWII are those with shorter wingspans, and sport squared wing tips. Look again at all the wings of WWII fighters and tell me which ones meet these specs.
To the modern jet age, the Mirage III used roll rate tactics (barrel rolls, scissors, rolling scissors) against swept wing MiGs that can turn tighter but has slower turning rates.
Vietnam War, study again the celebrated dogfight between the F-4 of Duke Cunningham and the MiG-17 of “Col. Tomb”. Once again, rolling maneuvers, the rolling scissors in particular, proved decisive. The F-4 Phantom has a better rate of roll than the MiG-17. Note that both the Mirage III and F-4 has shorter wingspan wings than the MiG-17.
But… but.. the Su-27 does not have a better rate of roll over the J-10. Its the other way around. The J-10 has the shorter wingspans. The engine is set on the bore axis, which is why single engined planes have better roll rates over twin engined planes, which got engines as weights off the aircraft’s center bore acting as inertial resistance against the rolling maneuver.
crobatoI do not think the F-16 is lost, the F-16A perhaps is inferior to the J-10 but modern re-engined F-16s must have better turn rates specially if they are powered by a F110-GE-132 of 32000lb.
I think the US has kept many secrets about latest blocks of F-16s
Actually the older F-16As has better turn rates than the F-16Cs with more powerful engines. The F-16Cs have gained over at least a ton and a half to nearly two tons of additional empty weight. Turn rate requires two factors, one being the horizontal thrust exerted on the Y axis of the craft, the other being the lift exerted on the vertical X axis of the craft. Because the plane is heavier with no change or addition of lift area on the F-16C, the plane has a higher wing loading and has less lift.
crobatoSo its showing performance the west managed 30 years ago
I checked all the similar launch performances of any plane including Typhoon and the F-22 in Youtube. None matched what the J-10 did exactly. The Typhoon not only had a longer run, it had its afterburners on. The J-10 didn’t.
Typhoon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryo7sETLSc4&feature=related
J-10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeuON3eGA0o
The F-22 actually lifted off its wheels, then sped for a short stretch to increase its airspeed, before pulling its nose into the sky for a vertical cilmb. The J-10 was already going vertical when it was still withdrawing in its wheels, meaning its doing its climb from a slower point.
crobatoFunny, on how many always consider the most agile fighters as the winner. Yet, in history that has hardly been the case. Except in the Korean War were both the F-86 Sabre and Mig-15 were so closely matched. Let’s not forget WWII was a totally WVR Fight. Yet, most of the successful types were hardly the most agile. Even 25-30 years later in Vietnam. American F-4’s were beating Mig-17’s, Mig-19’s, and Mig-21’s! Really, to be honest the more powerful fighters with good aceleration, speed, and reasonable agility have won the day…………..
Good acceleration, speed, and most especially rate of climb is not a big problem for the J-10 either. Seems to have a ton of that, considering that short STOL demonstration where the J-10 already took off in a near vertical climb with a run so short that its wheels was still trying to tuck in when it zoomed and without any visual evidence of the afterburner lighting.
crobatoA simple question I am sure someone in this forum can answer…Does the AGM-84 Harpoon ASM have a land attack capability out of the box?
No. If a Harpoon is made for land attack, the seeker has to change, preferably to an electro-optical one that relies on optical contrast and pattern recognition. Active radar guidance, like what ships use, blows when it comes to land attack because of terrain irregularities and obstructions, unlike the sea, which is essentially flat. So everything reflects radar on the ground. Against the sea, you got specular wave reflections but that can be differentiated from the reflection of a solid object. The radar seeker on an antiship missile is optimized against the backscatter of the ocean surface, but not against a solid ground. As a matter of fact, antiship missiles also have problems dealing with targets near the coast due to the radar reflections from the floor of the shallow water, as well as various coastal rocks. Coastal antiship missiles are either thermal or TV-optical guided.
Sea skimming antiship missiles will also take a very low flight profile, using radar like an altimeter. That’s going to depend a lot how the radar deals with scatter, and scatter over ground are different from water. During its initial and midphase, an antiship missile also receives target updates. A cruise missile uses radar differently. It scans the surface using doppler sharpening, then compares the features with a map stored in its memory. A sea skimmer does not have terrain maps stored in its memory, the radar does not terrain map, nor does it has the capacity to store a radar image of the target. An antiship missile in principle works much closer to an active radar guided BVRAAM missile than a cruise missile despite the physical resemblance.
SLAM and SLAM-ER are basically Harpoons with the seekers and midphase guidance systems changed, basically to TV guided ones or digital infrared imaging. These kinds of missiles can send TV images of their targets back to their launch planes or ships, which the operators can identify, target and authorize. So they’re closer in principle to Mavericks on steroids.
crobatoCongratulations on your wings, Phantom.
crobatoThat would be a fantastic airshow routine if it were 6 airplanes instead of a time lapse photo of one airplane.
Its actually the start of the routine that led the Russian journalist to write the article that heads this thread.
crobatoNice pick, Dieno. He is practicing touch and go sorties by the looks of it.
That was the STOL and vertical climb demonstration during Zhuhai show. The image is from a series of photographs placed into one. Videos of the event are posted in youtube and other places.
crobatoRadioactive water leaks from nuclear submarine HMS Trafalgar
A British nuclear submarine leaked hundreds of litres of radioactive waste into a river, it has emerged.
Hmm…sounds inspiring for a plot I’m working on…”Mutant Zombie Man Eating Fish”.
Or maybe sell the script to the producers of Dr. Who.
crobatoSo now posting an article without commenting on it is trolling? :rolleyes:
Especially the way you rephrase the title.
Here is the original title.
Dispatch from Zhuhai: China’s J-10 fighter is the real deal
crobatoOne characteristic of 4th gen nuclear submarines is the use of pumpjet propulsion, which might be quieter even than a skewed propeller. Subs that have them include the Resolute, Astute, Sea Wolf and Virginia class. The French Barracuda class plans to have it too, and some of the latest French SSBNs appear to have them.
I’m not sure the Akula II has that and it does not appear at least from the first Akula II the Vepr, that it has one. The Borei does however, and I seem more confident that the Borei is more qualified to be in the 4th generation.
crobatoThe you probably shouldn’t do so. I presented it “as-is” without commentary. Funny how you ASSume you know what I think.
Yes, constantly trolling.
crobatoEducational documentary explaining how a DSI works. The model there on the stand might have been a wind tunnel model to test out the concepts.
The next generation fighter from CAC is likely to use the DSI.
Sign In
