crobatoWell if you do not believe the webpage that is your personal decision is up to you but it does not change the facts.
The Appaulete and the Moskit 21K will do the main work of course, but if you read the appaulette is an adjuntant Radar and is so small that works as an additional radar antenna, the Moskit 21K is bigger but any way it proves they will work in conjuction with the Saphire if not they just would have replaced the Saphire and save weight, what ever the task the Saphire is playing is still in the MiG-23MLD in fact the Appaulete and the Saphire are a weapons system aided by the IRST so the MiG-23MLD capability is plausible and the Bulagarians they never said their MiG-23MLD but only the Russians ones
Why don’t you read your own text carefully. The Apaulet does the tracking, illumination and guidance of the missiles. So what does the Saphir 23 is left to do—just search.
Now you’re contradicting your own sources. Bleh.
crobatoStep by step.
http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/J8/J802.html
2 J-8 built and flown from 1969-79 (663 h), no radar, based on (E-152)
scan of E-152 added to compare with J-8 only!
Is there a pic around of those two basic J-8 built, to save me from the archive?
Why don’t you give this a rest?
This site is a far better and more detailed article on the J-8’s origins.
http://air.xuexue.net/pla/j8.htm
A babelfish of the text.
“Because the Mig designing bureau has developed the E-152 series large-scale single shot fighter aircraft in the Mig -21 foundation, the west always guesses the F-8 design source from E-152, but two actually and the not big common ground, the starting point is also different. “
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=20255&distinct_entry=true
Shows J-8I (modified) pic 530772 (large) , still a striking similarity with E-152
pic 503433 shows the radar. Where does it come from?
Jesus Christ. That’s the same J-8I we have seen throughout. Note the differences—wing fences along the wing aer different, the body is much more slender, the nose inlet is smaller
(By the way, there is written about low drag of F-7, the F-6 has not.)
Huh?
The J-8II is a different aircraft. Where did its engines come from? Where did its radar come from? Some other MiG-23 features are not in question I hope.
http://www.china-defense.com/chinese_fighter_development/chinese_fighter_development-1….
The engines came from the MiG-21MF (R-13 becomes WP-13). But the radar on the J-8II is something else. It’s much larger than the Saphir 23, with a diameter of at least 700mm. It is said to have look down modes (Saphir 23 does not). It is said to be able to guide PL-4/PL-6/PL-10 missiles—all Sparrow copies. This seems to me more like something cobbled and learned studying from the remains of radars of crashed Phantoms in Vietnam—just as how the Chinese first began to make Sparrow copies.
East Wind Series: “under Soviet tutelage”
Many people in the former comunist countries said the same things and you could red it anywhere, so it have to be right?!
The Chinese had problems to built a usefull MiG-21F13/J-7 copy for several years (no radar), but started out of the blue their own geometrical scaled-up version of a MiG-21F, which looked like a radarless E-152. Chinese never shortens ways by copying weapons/systems/engines from other countries?!
What do you mean, they have no radar? Their J-6s have a radar, and yet you’re saying the J-7s don’t? Early radars are monopulse ones, which isn’t hard to do.
crobatoCrobato, the Russian said R-77/R-27 able to be used by an upgraded Saphire-23 by just a modification of the radio correction Channel.
Which I honestly don’t believe. For the R-77 you need a bit more than that. If you honestly think it’s that simply, why are they proposing the entire Moskit 23 radar change or the Apaulet? If it was that simple why didn’t they actually do it?
Apaulette is an assistant to help the main radar. Moskit 21K the same but still your Saphire will be onborad assisted by the MiniPhased array radar the question was if the Russian the MASTERS OF THE PHASED ARRAY RADARS , could fit MiG-23MLD `s Saphire with the ability to fire AA-10 Alamo and AA-12 Adder and have multitarget engagement capabilities because there were some Bulgarian reports of multitarget engegement capabiliy in Russian MiG-23MLD, technically is not a problem, true and a Fact they can do it, you lost the threat of what we are talking historical well that is another thing but technicaly speaking they can do it even they used that capability to fire the AA-12 from a MiG-23 in 1986 so i am not lying the Russian could let the Saphire on board the MiG-23MLD and endow it with multitarget engagement capability, fit AA-10 Alamos and AA-12 Adder now the Question is if they really deployed some because according to the Bulgarian reports the Russian had MiG-23, at least some, with that capability, honestly is very blur if they did it
An assistant?
First of all, I don’t remember nowhere in the text mentioned that the Apaulet gives the Saphir 23 multiple targeting capability.
Second, the Saphir 23 is only repositioned as a search radar only. Read the text carefully. The Saphir 23 only does searches, but the tracking, locking and guidance of the AA-10 and AA-12 is done by the Apaulet. So practically, much of the Saphir 23’s functionality is subverted, turning it into nothing but a glorified search radar.
Third, the Bulgarians do not have R-77 capable MiG-23s so mind me I don’t consider the opinions of some Bulgarian fan sites to be authoritative if they said the MiG-23MLD has multiple targeting capability.
crobatoI am honest to say that as some reports like the AFM magazine given by Hydra and the J-8 link that Crobato gave i can agree that perhaps the J-8 was not based in the Ye-152 according to these reports, the link i gave it says the opposite a -Russian one- that the Ye-152 was the base for the J-8
The Russians are not an expert on the J-8, and opinions and speculations do not count against documented history. That does not make your link equal to the links I have given. The opinion you gave has totally no weight, and no validation at all.
crobatoany way i proved to you the fact that the MiG-23 with appaulete or Moskit or the modification to the correction channel make the Saphire able to fire AA-10, AA-12 and have multitarget engagement capability did you read the appaulete link i gave you and adjuntant mini phased array radar can allow to keep your old Saphire-23 yes or not?is an assistant to the old Saphire-23 yes or not?here is again the appauleteappaulete radar for MiG-23 link
None of the mods were ever enacted in service—whch means no guarantee that it will work. Neither does it prove that Saphire 23 has multiple targeting capability. In fact, they tend to prove otherwise. The Apaulette is more than just an assistant, any multiple target track while scan ability and modes to use R-77 would have to be in that pod. Like I said before, you’re trying to use the apaulet as proof that the Saphir 23 has multiple targeting. Basically I think you’re abusing links to come to prove technically and logically improvable conclusions. You don’t impress people by doing that.
crobatoHi Carobato,
I becomes the feeling you like flaming and not to be interested in an exchange of opinions. No word about the Vietnam claim. I know very well, why you did not give
The Vietnam claim, why not try Topcezkski—MiG-17 and MiG-19 Units in Vietnam, published by Osprey Books, 2001. He has also has a bunch of Osprey books about the Vietnam Air War, e.g. F-4 Phantom Units in Vietnam War, F-8 Crusader Units in V. War, and so on.
the link for the PAF-claim. Congratulations, you avoided that trap. – It was Mao, who forced Stalin into the Korean-war. Not disputed by the historians now.
I got mine from sinodefence.com. Go read the J-6 page. Check it out.
Mao forced Stain into the Korean War? Be serious? It was Stalin who talked Mao into it.
The infos about MiG-21MF/bis were for interested readers. The quality of the MiG-21MF/bis was not the reason, If I remember well? The radar and R-13 of the MF were of prime interest for China. Knowing little about history of 50s till 70s, the development of the Chinese aviation-industry looks much rosier.
The early engines of the F-6 had a TBO of 100 hours. The production quality was a shame in the 60s. The best engine at hand, were the early R-11. The most advanced radar the RP-1/5 Izumrud. The reverse engineering took several years. Why not blame the Russians for that shortcomings.
Took several years? China got their MiG-21MF from Egypt in 1979. In 1984, the J-7C was already flying.
1972 most of the Chinese ~1500 fighter ac were J2/4 and the production of J6 becomes constant.(<1000 produced in more than 10 years, losses and small exports in mind.) [ 1966 Pakistan waste money for 90 F-86, when it could have bought more superior F-6?!]
No. Most Chinese fighters were J-5 (MiG-17) and J-6 in small but gradual numbers. Cultural Revolution greatly wrecked all production and development plans across the board. J-6A was only approved in 1975 and production was cleared for it in 1980. Two other J-6 variants came after that, and collectively these made the bulk of production.
stated. China did not became an “enemy” over night and was still a communist country,
Russia often treated other Communist countries with suspicion, and no, I don’t think anyone, friend or not, would concievably share blueprints of their prototypes not even to their most favored allies.
Do note that even with the preponderance of Chinese advisers in the Vietnam War, the Chinese did not bother emulating the PF/PFM/PFV design, literally skipping one generation of MiG-21 design. FRankly you have not provided me information about MiG-21MF in Vietnam or proof that China got MF from whatever passage of goods to Vietnam.
The MiG-21MF itself was not very popular. It was considered heavy, and was quickly superceded by the -bis. In Chinese service, the J-7D quickly replaced the J-7C with an improved radar and upgraded engine. But the J-7D as I said, did not last long either. Only one regiment of J-7C was known, and another regiment of J-7D.
crobatoYou are really funny what are the second and third phase of modernization? read the whole page there are three phases of modernization. and in two the Saphire remains only in the first phase they replaced the radar
You really an idiot to even miss thinking why the Moskit 23 is being proposed as the “first” modernization in the first place. Because it is the most possible to do and the one that is most concievable.
The second proposal adds considerable drag because it requires a pod. The pod in effect becames the plane’s supplementary radar. It is there because it ADDS functions to which the primary radar LACKS.
The third proposal is even funnier. An RF channel alone can get you R-77, R-27 and R-73 capability? Not without some serious component additions to the radar, which includes a computer and associative software to ADD air to air modes that the original radar LACKS.
crobatoDid you read the whole link? the Saphire can remain in order to fire the R-77 please read the link
Wrong. You read English or what?
The Sapfir-23 multifunctional airborne radar was the first radar capable of discriminating a target against the background of the Earth due to employment of a moving target selection mode. However, the capabilities of the MiG-23 fighter do not meet the present-day combat requirements because the radar signature of new-generation fighters is lower, the Sapfir-23 airborne radar is not able to control the modern missile armament operating in other frequency ranges and it is not provided with an airborne digital computer.
The first version of modernization envisages replacement of the Sapfir-23 airborne radar or its modified version with the Moskit-23 airborne radar, which is to be installed in the nose section of the fighter in place of the main monoblock (antenna, receiver, transmitters of the main and illuminating channels of the Sapfir-23 airborne radar).
Also you are right is the MiG-23-98 and i just gave you the link to show you how easy the Russian can make a MiG-23 to fire AA-12 and AA-10.
I am not arguing if the MiG-23 was ever fielded with that capability operationally but show you that despite you did not read the whole page the MiG-23 with an appaulette podded radar, Moskit 21K podded radar or with small modification to the correction channnel and the R-77 processor can be adapted to fire AA-10 and AA-12 and the rest about the MiG-23MLD fielded with such capability is something i know perhaps the Russian never were able to deployed operationally despite the R-77 was fire from MiG-23s in 1986 and that makes the rumor of the MiG-23MLD able to fire ripple firings a plausible thing even if it has been reported in some links as a fact, technically is not impossible but Historically is still is an enigma if some were deployed albeit in small numbers .
And if you read the whole page, the RADAR WAS REPLACED.
Even if you use the pod, the pod REPLACES the radar functionality because it is the one doing the work.
By some twisted logic are you trying to prove that the Saphir 23 has multiple targeting capability because you can use the Apaulet pod?
Wrong. The pod takes over the radar functions.
If you read the page carefully, the multitargeting function came from the Moskit-23.
In addition to the Sapfir-23 airborne radar’s main operating modes, the Moskit-23 airborne radar features the following additional functions:
AIR-TO-AIR operating mode:
range finding, searching and tracking;
tracking-while-pass of eight targets with simultaneously engaging two targets;
close combat.
What I can see from you is all sorts of wishful thinking, and to support your wishful thinking you go to extreme lengths twisting and misinterpreting the data and information of the links you provide.
Also i think instead of keeping arguing the same i will look for more information about the Ye-152 plans leaked to China, i feel good links will either prove me right or will prove me wrong so until i have more links i think Crobato you are entitle to give credit to the sources you deem correct since i do not want to annoy you and for the moment for me is sufficient that link that shows a Ye-152 ancestry in the J-8Ii lineage.
BULLCRAP.
You provided me a link WITHOUT THE FOOTNOTES that showed where the speculation came from. Very likely it would not come from those sources you mentioned. I will not give you any credit—you don’t deserve any.
I gave you a Chinese source that says otherwise, with much more detail about the origins of the J-8.
crobatoThe MiG-23MLD can do it with an appaulette or moskit 21K radar MiG-23 update to MiG-23-98 and it allows to keep the old Saphire 23 and a simple modifacation to the radio correction Chnnnel and the processor of the R-77 can allow it to fire the R-77 in fact that is the Cheapest MiG-23-98 update just USD$300,000 the appaullet was not deployed but the simple modification i am talking was the one the Russian used to fire the R-77/AA-12 Adder from a MiG-23 in 1986 and that one also allowed them to use the R-27T/AA-12 Alamo.
Wrong. You showed me a link to the MiG-23-98, which so far never existed as far as I know beyond the planning stage.
That is not the MLD. The modification in the -23-98 requires a replacement of the Saphir 23 with the Moskit 23 radar. That’s not a simple modification, that’s a replacement.
The Ye-152A finished it flight test program in August 1961 and only continued it`s flight test as a technology demostrator for the Ye-152 single engine version until crashing in 1966 so it was ready in terms of flight test but i never said that the Ye-152 whole program was transfered to China neither the author he only said the blueprints or plans so the chinese needed to do the whole work by them selves but the MiG-21 helped them you implied that the Russian gave the Machinery and tools needed to build the Ye-152 in China but they just gave them the blueprints and documents related.
The author was making an unproven conjecture and speculation. The Chinese did not even know there was a thing called a Ye-152.
Infact i will say that plans and blueprints do not make a nation to build an aircraft for that you need the tooling and machinery and you are right the Russian started to get suspicious of the Chinese so they did not give them the Radar technology and Engines and an irony at the end they gave them the R-11-300 via the MiG-21.
You never gave me a satisfactory explanation why give them the blue prints in the first place. You don’t even know that when the J-8 and J-9 projects started, both were heavily intertwined together.
Here is some Chinese text that was babelfished.
“Because the Mig designing bureau has developed the E-152 series large-scale single shot fighter aircraft in the Mig -21 foundation, the west always guesses the F-8 design source from E-152, but two actually and the not big common ground, the starting point is also different. The plan selects two 涡to spurt -7 armor (WP-7B) the engine, single maximum thrust 43.15000 cows, single thrust augmentation thrust force 58.8000 cows. Here also must refer to 涡the fan -6. In December, 1960 center the Yang military commission decided sets up the aeronautical research institute, in August, 1961 set up the aircraft engine design research institute in Shenyang. Well-known engine expert Wu Daguan is appointed technical vice- manager, awards technical colonel the military rank. This -21 “traced thoroughly to the Mig, imitates independently designs” played the vital role, traced thoroughly to the Mig -21 engine, formed has been mature 涡spurts -7 series. At that time the national industry foundation was weak, the aviation industry development received the great nation containment and the blockade, walked road of the digestion introduction, was the unwise action. Concrete saying “the digestion introduction”, is in fact first step first does the F-8, decision-making process like preceding text states; Second step does annihilates -9, namely upper air high speed all-weather fighter plane, on necessary afterburning turbofan engine project, serial number 涡fan -6. F-8 success service, but annihilated -9afterwards discontinues”
The J-8I was based from the J-7 technologies simple as that. They did the simplest and most obvious way to make a high speed interceptor from MiG-21 parts and that is to put two engines into one airframe.
crobatoThe data were given for Vietnam, if I remember well.
I red about a 8/10 ratio of MiG-19.
I am kind enough to assume MiG-19/F-6 was a typing error.
Now you pop up with a PAF claim.
Please give the link.
Oh geez, go check it out with Pakdef. I got my info with sinodefence.com.
[quote]
MiG-23 from Egypt is ok. MiG-21 maybe, but it is obviously a cover-up. Many other items were missed from transfer through China. Border incidents between SU/China from 1969 “Ussuri”. Cold relations between China and Vietnam culminating in border-war 1979.
[quote]
Conjecture conjecture. The MF was obtained from EGYPT in the late seventies.
And you’re totally wrong that Soviet stuff used China as a conduit to Vietnam. In fact, with China and the SU at odds, it was impossible to use China as a conduit. All the Russian stuff had to reach Vietnam via ship.
It was impossible for the former SU to blame China for “losses”, because all communist countries did all possible to help the Vietnamese against the US-Aggression. Today China is one of Russias best customer. China is loosing face, if the truth comes public about its past-time behavior. China was desperately looking for a fighter radar for its J-8. Without that, it was near to useless. (How many hours are left from ~8760 h/Y-100%, when you have distract night-time, bad weather and cloudy days?)
huh?
US F-4 crews met ordinary MiG-21MFs, which showed extraordinary flight performances at lower levels. Despite this, those pilots denied combat and disengaged.
SHOW ME PROOF that MFs were in the Vietnam War.
Extraordinary performance? The MF SUCKED, slaughtered in the Middle East.
The MiG-21MF did combat 1970 in Egypt with Russians pilots there.
And lost to Israel?
The Vietnamese received their MiG-21MF before Feb. offensive in 1972.
And you got sources?
The MiG-21bis was cleared for production in Feb. 1972. After the spring offensive 1972,
which broke an agreement, which had stopped the US-bombing of North-Vietnam before, the USA started “Linebacker” the bombing of North-Vietnam. To stokepile for an offensive, the SU was in informed about the Vietnamese intentions in advance.
In the 70s there was no internet and I have to pull out all my books and magazines from those time to look for the articles. But I get the feeling, what ever I write, some people will stick to their personal view. I have no problem with that.
How about a apologize/correction about 8/10 ratio posting?
😛
I have not seen anything to suggest that I was wrong. You only showed one version, and I showed mine. What, desperately trying to prove that the MF is a “good” aircraft?
Hear it again, okay? The PLAAF thought it sucked. They built a small batch and then discontinued back in favor of a rehashed -F.
crobatobut sorry in the link i gave they said the -Air launched version has a range of 25km- please if you do not believe me read the report, if you can give me a Jane`s page to read the information you said i can agree the PL-11 has a range of 75km but in that report they said the air launched version not the SAM if not it would say the SAM version has a range of 25km
Then explain to me why Jane’s reedited the same article and has taken out the range quote, huh? (April 23, 2004 instead of April 21, 2004).
Chinese missile may be for Pakistan’s F-16s
ROBERT HEWSON Editor Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons
Bangkok“China is about to bring a second beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air missile (AAM) to the export market. The new weapon, to be known as the FD-60, is already in service with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force as the PL-11.
In China it equips the Shen- yang J-8II ‘Finback’ interceptor but, according to the manufacturer, the export version is intended for the F-16 – a clear signal that Pakistan could be the lead customer.
Development of the FD-60 (PL-11) began in 1987 and was completed in 2000, according to the China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corporation (CPMIEC). The weapon is described as an air-launched version of the LY-60 surface-to-air missile. It uses semi-active radar homing.
The missile borrows heavily from Aspide technology supplied by Italy before an arms embargo was imposed on China following the Tiananmen Square massacre.
China also had access to early-model US-built AIM-7 Sparrow missiles acquired via Vietnam, from which the Aspide itself is derived. Since the late 1980s Chinese technicians have been developing a Sparrow-class missile.
“Until now most observers had assessed the PL-11/FD-60 programme as a largely unsuccessful effort that had been overtaken by the more advanced PL-12/SD-10 active-radar AAM, developed under the leadership of the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corp (CATIC). However, it now appears that work on the PL-11/FD-60 has continued, perhaps to provide a back-up capability in the event of problems with the PL-12/SD-10 but also because CPMIEC has identified an export market for the missile.
As the FD-60 is based largely on the Aspide/Sparrow design, integrating it with US-built aircraft should be relatively straightforward. Such a missile would be of great interest to existing customers of Chinese equipment, such as Pakistan and Iran, that have inventories of US fighters for which they cannot obtain advanced weapons – chiefly BVR missiles.
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is already working on acquiring a BVR combat capability through the SD-10 and JF-17 Thunder (CATIC FC-1 fighter) combination. However, the opportunity to add a BVR AAM to its inventory much sooner (via the F-16) would surely be seized by the PAF command, which has already identified such weapons as one of its highest acquisition priorities.”
crobatoOkay i need to say i gave links that said that, and if you want i can give again the links but like i said before that fact you say that my links are false or wrong is simply like if i say your links are wrong, if we want to know the true it will take a lot of effort and the vast majority of people take sides specially if we are giving links or quoting people, i can give you links that said that the MiG-23MLD had multitarget engagement capability
And you think LINKS can replace LOGIC and COMMON SENSE?
Everyone was already making a huge fool out of you. Links are not infallible. Links can often be wrong. Don’t use links to cover your technical inadequecies and lack of knowledge.
Why don’t you explain to me how a MiG-23MLD can have multiple target engagement capability with SARH missiles that can only lock and guide in STT single target tracking mode.
I’m waiting…
i even can give you links that say the saphire can be transformed into a multitarget engagement capability radar by just modifying it of by aiding it with a mini phased array radar name appaulette or use the Moskit 23 in the same manner as tha appaullete or prove you with a picture that the MiG-23-98 has the AA-10 Alamo in it`s arsenal , books that said the MiG-23MLD used the AA-10 Alamo, [B]i already gave you a link for the
The Apaullete wasn’t deployed, and the AA-10 Alamo only works in the STT mode.
Ye-152/J-8 common origin[/B] even i gave you links for the Su-15 weight and i can give you links for the R-25 thrust of 7,600kgs and what can you say is either accepted or refute them with other links, honestly i consider that the
You gave me links to speculative BS. And most trust figures on the R-25 are not 7600kgs either.
You cannot explain to me the lack of correlation between the time periods between the YE-152 and J-8I development. You cannot give me MOTIVE for why the Russians would share YE-152 plans to the Chinese. You cannot give me EXPLANATION why the Russians would share a top secret experimental project to a country they are highly suspicious off. And for what? What did the Russians gain from that?
The Russians might as well hand over plans of the Backfire bomber to the Chinese if they’re that generous.
fact you say my links are wrong is subjective, i am always ready to consider other possibilities and i will give an example there are many links that give a weight for the SU-15 of 12,220 kg empty weight and others give a max of 10,220 or you can take sides saying the J-8II has no influence of the MiG-23, they did not reversed engineered the inlet or the ventral fin, okay you will base your opinions either in links or in personal beliefs like any body does,
They did reverse engineer the MiG-23’s splitter and the folding ventral fin—things that are relatively trivial, and then you go hog around saying the J-8II is a MIG-23 copy for that?
[B]but explain me the reason why the Chinese would buy MiG-23s in 1978 just for the fun of making J-9s drawings or just for see how it is constructed?
Have you figured out that the Chinese was interested in the R-27/R-29 engine and the variable wing technology? The Chinese ultimately failed in trying to reverse engineer the engine, and concluded that VG wing proved to be too complex. They were correct in that decision. They went to a fixed wing on the JH-7 and chose to pursue FBW technologies instead.
logic dictate that they would apply that technology in their own projects and in this case the J-8II as the AIM-54 given by Iran to the Soviet Union help Russia in the MiG-31 program[/B] explain me why Russia gave the MiG-21 to China if it was also a Top fighter in 1962?
Have you figured out that China may have paid good money to acquire MiG-21 license? The Russians hardly treated the Chinese with free things you know—Stalin gave Mao a big bill for all the “aid” the Russians sent to the People’s Volunteer Army in Korea.
Have you figured out that at least the MiG-21 was a finished aircraft?
I gave you links that support my theories you can give also yours but honestly few reports about the MiG-23 or J-8II will be 100% exactly perfect and in the Internet there are many contradictory links.
No. You gave links to cover up you blistering lack of logic and common sense and none of those links are able to compensate for that either.
crobatoLooks like the Kub is numbered 717.
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs2/11018521/20040813/11830995.html
crobatoHo ho ho ho
this is maybe the first possibly first time I agree with you.. and here I was thinking you were a M2K nut 😉
The Block 50+ is the best deal for a single engined offensive multi role fighter you can get, for cost and capability.As for the Block 60.. you’re right.. but then again, if I was paying that same price level, I’d wouldn’t get the even more ridiculously expensive and probably not as capable and developed Typhoon and Rafale 😀
Whoever gave you the impression I like the M2K?
For the price you’re paying for a Block 60, you might as well get an Eagle. I do think radars for export from the US tends to be downgraded compared to their USAF counterparts, so I don’t think its necessary to get the bells and whistles if your SAR is intentionally limited to a set resolution for example. So you might as well get a better and more capable airframe.
Once you reach the 70 mil region, I might take a hard look at the Rafale too.
crobatoOkay well that knocks the F-16 off my list and proves the Python-3 can be carried on the wingtip, but why don’t you see the F-5 and/or Mirage F-1 in question with the missile on the wingtip. Isn’t it more advantageous to carry a missile on the wingtip instead of underwing?
Python 3 is draggy. I guess it probably affects more of the plane’s performance if it’s on the wingtips instead of underneath.
Sign In
