The Eagles had the AIM-9X acquisition rounds. So, if the IAF planes were using the R-73, the USAF planes had the AIM-9X.
BTW, can someone ID the stuff hangin off the HPs of this Eagle?
Also, what are the things on top of the vertical stabilizers?
http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/040224-F-0000S-009.jpg
All acronyms in the US Govt are registered by the Federal Acronym Registry Team. Which, ironically, doesn’t use an acronym.
Naah… The IAF is thinking of phasing out its M2Ks and other western platforms and has dropped the M2K-5 from its list.
Kidding aside, the Raf was disqualified as being too expensive and having too much of an overlap with the MKI.
Absolutely no offence taken. Just giving my thoughts on why the US military always seem to take its lumps during exercises but then when the real bullets fly, wind up on top. The reason is because of network centric warfare, off platform designation, coop engagement, and various other buzz words that make the US military very mean during the shooting war.
The US, along with having some of the best individual platforms, has the best (bar none) concept and practice of fighting the war collectively. Although many countries might be able to compete with the US in the field of having a comparable platform the US is literally decades ahead in terms of implementing the concept of fighting as a single force.
Me just thinking out loud…
The USAF’s strength lies in fighting as a cohesive and networked unit that has much greater situational awareness than the enemy. And by necessity, the USAF, tries to deny the same adavantage to the enemy.
During exercises like the one mentioned by Phil and like Cope India, the primary advantages that the USAF enjoys get taken away and replaced by scripted events followed by momentary off-the-cuff stuff. The USAF doesn’t fight its wars that way… thankfully 🙂
Charlie Echo, you are correct sir. I was getting the two incidents mixed up.
On a funny note, my two dogs are named Charlie and Echo.
Well, what’s the reason for the F/A-22 having 2Ds instead of the 3Ds?
As far as I understand the issue, there was a trade off b/w signature reduction enabled by the flat exhaust and the 3D vectoring. Also, 3D vectoring would increase the weight of the aircraft in additiono to increasing its IR sig.
That is about as much as I know or think I know. 🙂
Originally posted by kya bidu
Interesting to see the Su30K with an external fuel tank. Don’t know if this is the first public picture of the Su27+ series with external fuel tank?Wy would a Su30K require a fuel tank for an excercise given its large fuel capacity and IFR?
OTOH it could be a buddy refueling pod?!
Where do you see the fuel tank?
I think it was in Iraq, during the latest campaign, early in the war. A PAC-3 obliterated a F-16. I think that’s the incident you are talking about.
Originally posted by phrozenflame
whoa dint knew PUMA would look like a wild angry beast,
Theoretically speaking, can the Puma handle an operational load like the one depicted in Rambo?
Too bad the PS’ed OH-1 didn’t make it into the globalsecurity hall of shame.
The Nova-Bomb?
Is when a Chevy Nova is loaded up and rolled to the target?
According to the Simpsons, the aliens have learned all they can learn from rectal probing. However…. umm… my friend tells me that the aliens are amenable to other orifices. 🙁
Thanks Sean. If the MFI was taken to its full fruition, approximately how capable would it have been? Roughly equivalent to the EF?
What role was the MFI supposed to have? Air superiority with ground attack as a secondary role, like the EF?
Also, was the program a solicited one by the VVS or was it Mig general manager’s hobby project that didn’t get the funds?