aurcovHollyweird, Tom Cruise doing cobra in the Tomcat, that`s ridiculous . Cobra is an useless airshow maneuver to anyone, even to Tom Cruise.
Not in TopGun:p
aurcovStoopid question: what would prevent the Su-34 from being selected ?
If the Aussies really want a prime striker, that would be the last version of F 15 E. The one for Singapore: AESA radar, upgraded RWR, upgraded jammer, 15 tons of fuel, AMRAAM and 9X/JHMCS for A-A; and a list of A-G weapons so long that would worth a separate thread…
aurcov10-15 years ago when the Su-35 was doing these manoeuvres, they were dismissed by the western press and (mainly US) internet pundits etc as ‘just airshow manoeuvres’
They had no relevance in air combat and made the aircraft that did them a sitting duck.
Any future aerial combat (so they said) would be done at BVR and such things as TVC, Cobras, Kulbits et al were totally worthless.
Now that the F-22 has demonstrated them – suddenly they are kick-ass combat manoeuvres that enable the F-22 to dominate the battlefield
Cobras and Kulbits are totally worthless in today air combat. Nevertheless they are, indeed, a proof of what an aircraft can do.
US stated in many ocasions that the TVC are needed on F 22 to provide this plane an unmatched maneuvrability at 1.6 Mach and 55,000 feets, were Flankers (and Eagles for that matter) would have the agility of a flying brick.
So, in F 22 case the low speed maneuvrability is just a by-product.
OK – I’ll concede that only the IAF has TVC OPERATIONAL – but the Cobra & Kulbit was being demonstrated by the Su-27/Su-35/Su-27 at least 15 years ago.
have you seen the F 16 MATV with 3D TVC? Some 15 years before the Russians tested the MiG 29 OVT?
…but lets also give the Flanker – and the Russians – some kudos as well.
The Flanker family is a impressive bunch of A/Cs; with equal pilots an F 15/F 16 would be in a big trouble; however if Flankers will have to face F 22s…
aurcovCobra, kulbit?…..guys, you have to get used to it, those we have seen fifteen years ago. But why keep repeating those impressive “sitting duck” airshow maneuvers when the opposition is now well ahead and I doubt the F-22 is even close to the MKI or OVT and there is no assumption at all. It would fall out of the sky when repeating these…
I guess russians could say welcome to the 90’s .
The Russian planes that did the same maneuvers in the ’90 were test planes. In the same period, US did field its share of test/experimental planes: F 15 Active, F 16 MATV, F 18 , X 31.
However, as sad it may sound for the Flankerboys, there is not a single operational TVC plane in the Russian AF inventory. The only operational TVC fighters aside the 100 Raptors delivered so far, are the 40 or 45 MKIs, but these are in the Indian AF.
But let me offer you a small consolation. I do agree that the Russian are number one in entertainning crowds at airshows around the globe…
aurcovI don’t speak Portuguese, but I guess it said that in the JLENS program, US Army tested the AIM-9X, AMRAAM and Stinger on an HMMWV Missile Tracking Mount (MTM) from Boeing.
aurcovhttp://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/amraam2descri.html
bottom page. It seems that the aprogram is named JLENS.
aurcovSince a railgun with a 250 mile range is much cheaper for targeting 85% of planet’s surface, it makes the need for tactical aircraft development lessen.
A destroyer, be it the new stealthy Zummwald would still have an RCS hundreds time greater than a F 22 or B 2. It would still sail with 30 knots instead of 800 (F 22).
aurcovNow tell me how an AMRAAM can steer in space…
A modification, such TVC would do the job. It seems however that you missed the “:p” in my post…
aurcovBasically an active radar homer (like the AMRAAM or PL-12) for space. Mid-course guidance from the launch radar and then terminal self-homing.
In this case we might see some additons to satellites: RWRs, MLDs, jammers and a couple of AMRAAMs for self-defense…:p
aurcovConsidering the giant deficits the US economy is running & the cost of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan will the money be there to pay for all the new tankers and the large mooted numbers of F35s ,more F22s & Super Hornets let alone other transport & support planes ,other major refurbishments, helos. etc. etc.UAVs, I give up ,it is too big for this kid to contemplate, all US citizens on this forum -get ready for big Tax Hikes in the oncoming years, good time to be living in OZ ,but then again that is any time.
US deficit is no larger (in relative terms — % of its GDP) than UE’s and even smaller than Japan’s. Irak is another matter, it really sucks money. But if US air power is death, what about the rest of the world?
aurcovDeveloping an ASAT system makes sense if China expects to bob heads with the US in the future. Take out our GPS, Keyhole and SATCOM network and you put a serious dent in US warfighting ability.
The GPS constellation is at 36,000 km above the earth. That’s a little above from the current chinese shot;) .
aurcovBesides that, many Saddam’s opponents won’t forgive you 1991, where you turned 70km from Baghdad and left them in deep sh!t. For them you are not trustworthy anymore..
Only half true. If the Shia are right to accuse US for encouraging them to rise against Saddam only to let him to massacre, the Kurds had to thanks US because after 1991 they were practically out of Saddam reach. I think that the only place in Iraq where American are welcommed is Northen Iraq.
aurcovQuote:
Originally Posted by flex297
Uff, that would be BIG improvement over TF30. But I find this pretty unlikely, if you ask me.Otherway, both F110 and Al31F are fine designs, definitely the most prominent fighter engines of their age.
Other than the F100 that is.
I think that one engine family should be added: GE 404/414. After all it powers the F 18 A/B/C/D/E/F, F 117, A 4S, the Swedish JAS Grippen, the Indian LCA, the S. Korean T 50, in all 14 countries are using thiem.
aurcovI am well aware of the changes made on the Echo model. But, again, I have to repeat, designing an airframe for 16000 flying hours is superfluous, at best. Not that it would be technically impossible to design a combat aircraft with even 30,000 hours, but who needs that and who will be paying for such nonsense?Such enormous stechnical life requires complex structure made of precious high-tensile materials hard to work with and with every additional 1000 hours the costs raise not linearly, but exponentially. Ergo, if you have bought a 16000h airframe, you have paid 2-3 times as much as it is really worth.
Nonsese? Take alook to this: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm you can see that the projected life of F 15 C in different scenarios can go to 12,000 hours. Also don’t forget the B 52: they accumulated over 30,000 hours and are planned to operate up to 2040!
BTW, service life is no way a byproduct or an accidental number, it is an exactly defined and controlled production and design parameter.
When I said by-product, I meant that it resulted from the increased strenght, and I add that is just a guess. It could be that the 16,000 hours might have been the main pourpose
The amount of titanium does not really count, otherwise based on that, then the Soviet planes should indeed live the longest of all planes, especially the Flankers..
It’s true that the Flakers incorporate the largest percentage of titanium (only the the F 22 is over), but I doubt that ealrier Soviet planes can claim the same.
The problem with the gear is not its weakness (F-15 is no F-16 ) but the very high ground pressure esp for the front gear. The main gears have larger tyres and thus bulged doors, but i believe there was no space left for a larger front tyre.
Exactly. While I heard of many landing gears broken on F 16, I didn’t hear of such a thing on F 15 and especially F 15E.
BTW, I would appreciate if you quit your ‘US planes bashing’ rhetoric on every negative remark regarding US aircraft someone makes here. It is already gotten beyond boring and no matter how you try, you beloved US tech is exactly as piece of crap with its advantages and drawbacks as anything else, be it Russian, French, English or Chinese. Have a nice day
Cool down, it’s a joke…
aurcovHow come ‘may be not’? If your airframe sustains 16,000 hours while you only are able to use your aircraft for 8000h (which makes it already a really beaten one), then you have paid 8000h lifetime in your airframe too much. That means your aircraft was overweighted, overengineered, overpriced and less powerful than it could have been when designed effectively.
Remember, the best design is the one that breaks up exactly the day it has been withdrawn from service.
Let me translate what I meant. It could be a “pure marketing bullsh!t” to quote a classic-in-life of US planes bashing. I can’t say because I don’t know for sure. However what I red about the E is that because it was beefed-up to carry 11 tons of goodies and 15 tons of fuel in the same frame of the F 15D, the structure was strengthened. Titanium was more extensively used (compared with the D). So, it could be that the mentioned 16,000 hours represents a by-product of this strengthening process. However, I red this figure in many sources
Yes, static pressure. But AFAIK, F-15E is not certified to operate from grass fields, for instance. IIRC, especially F-15s also have big problems with snow.
Where did you find this? Because at least two AF bases are in regions with extreme harsh winters–Mountain Home, Idaho and Elmendorf, Alaska. And I didn’t read of any particular problem in operating the E stationed at those bases.
Sign In
