AFAIK, the SU 27 G limits are indeed 8,5 as the computer gives. But one could always exclude the G limiter and pull more Gs.

What hell is the Su 27 SK version?

hi,

once happened that a Kfir F 21 pulled almost 14 G in a (mock) battle to evade a collision (true) with another aircraft. The Viggen was proof even with 20 Gs! neverthless the viggens were at the beginnings to suffer for structural breakdowns, AFAIK.

So the Gs are important for:

– to evade a letal treath with a instantaneous acceleration that even the older types of aircraft could take for few seconds without crushing

-for the new aircrafts, the Gs are important because the fighters are so powerful to not loose the speed. A old phantom could take a 8 Gs and even over 10, but a Eagle could take 8 gs even in a turn of 180 deg. A Fulcrum in a low level could hold 9Gs for a complete turn wthout loose the speed. Also, the extr-power of the new gen fighter is important because the external loads could make problems: A F 16 is certainly less affected in perforamnce and continous accelerations manouvers with bombs than a Phantom. At the end, the number of Gs is dependant by the speed and the levels and the newer types should have windows greater than the older types.

So, even a old mig 15, even a spitfire, could take 8 Gs but the overall performances was much different from a 29..not questions about supersonic manouvers, of course.
The Gs manouvers , at teh end, don’t say nothing as the structural lifespan. The f 16s and Mig 29 have less life span than a eagle and perhaps a phantom, even if the certified g-limit could be higher.

regs.

but what could be the cost of a styx missile? I have heard that the Tomawhak costs around 1 million, the harpoon 400,000 $, the harpoonsky -10 years ago- a third of that. And a Chinese styx or other types? 100,000? 200,000?

About the styx as land attack weapon, my guess is that the SAMs-AAMs could cost more than this weapon. I have read that the HAWK costs around 250,000 $, an Sparrow 200,000 and a AIM 9 100,000. So, if we exculde the AA and the MANPADS the cost to assure the downing of such missile with a couple of these AAM-SAM, could be much higher than the attackers spend to launch such missiles. So, therorically, in a huge missile battle, China could have more SSMS than Taiwan SAMs-AAMs.
the DS use of patriot vs scud was an example. I know that atleast 140 Patriots were fired to shot down notm ore than 45 scuds or even lesser. If the Scud costs 1 million each, the patriots fired vs them were much more costly than the scud downed, even if they were really 45. this not to talk about the cost of a complete patriot battery and the array needed to couver the targets for the scud missiles. This means that only a very rich and advanced country could have the money to defend itself from a low-tec. treath like the scuds, and this without the use of NBC warheads.
Also the V-1 employ in the WWII is another example in wich the missiles, despite their vulnerability and imprecision, made damages several times higher than the costs for the germans to field these weapons. So, apparently, the offense is generally more cost-effective than the defense, see also the mines and Mandpads, RPGs, small arms etc..

Also for the VJ 83- c 803: how vessells have it? The older OSA have something more than the basic styx?

i simply cannot fullow all the chinese projects and less i can understund if China leaders have decided that their country must develop more projects than the rest of the world togheter, expecially when the missiles or whatever else developed weren’t even put in service or just in few examples (i.e in a couple of ships) and barely offered for export. I’d say that there is a lot of confusion about the Chinese enviroment plans, and the problem with the missiles is worsered because we cannot know if this or that missile are abandoned because they cost too much, they are too disappointed or the chinese leaders suffers of a kind of paranoic disturb.

As the Kraken, i would ask if is it true that exists a version for land attacks with longer range (you know, i am interested in the V-1 philosophy and i think that the styx family missiles is the modern equivalent of those weapons: a styx with enough range to reach Taiwan could be much less costly than a real Tomawhak class missile) that certainly could be developed by such big airframe.

Quote,

“I knew that Sameer was mentioning that ‘capability’ of Brahmos with a view to the action from 1971. Unfortunately what isnt well known, or readilly accepted by some, is that the ‘severe blow’ struck ashore by those OSA-class boats was largely pure dumb luck!

This is mainly because the targetting system for the P-15 missiles was basic in the extreme. The procedure to fire those missiles was to take a series of radar fixes, on the search set, on a clear contact, manually set a range-gate into the missile with a seeker activation time and keep the boat steady on bearing to the target for long enough to fire the weapon. The system back then had no facility to ‘lock-on’ to a target prior to launch.

Now the MR-331 Rangout search radar fitted to those OSA’s was designed to pick out sea contacts against an open background inside of about a 40nm range. It was totally incapable of picking out targets amidst land clutter with any definition. So, what happened could have been one of two possibilities:

a) that the Osa crews either fired on visual bearing to the POL tanks and the missiles either went through seeker activation and hit the first thing that came into their field of view or, just as likely, the missiles never actually locked-up on anything and just flew straight into the tanks on account of their preset altimeter; or

b) that they got a broad aspect radar contact ashore, fired on it, and the missiles managed to fly into something vital that just happened to be in their seeker FoV on activation.

Either way it was not the precision land-attack that many, particularly Indians, like to believe. I’m not explaining this to denigrate the achievements of the IN’s missile boat squadrons back then, as they certainly did an effective job in their more conventional anti-shipping tasks during those missions, but to highlight the limitations of active-radar homing AShM’s in land attack missions in general!.
__________________
Regards,”

Ok, it’s clear now that the dirty communists couldn’t do anithing right for UK standards. One could wonders only IF and when their systems functions.
but in 1971 the RN what kind of SSMs got? Sea Slug?mh….

So, few questions and considerations about this plane.

If we talk about the F 100 vs the Mig 19, i would know if they were armed with sidewinders-Atoll as normal loads. So, even if some of them were armed with AAMs, how many of them were really armed with these?

The range: how they compared each other? My -few-datas says that the Mig was equal with ext. tanks as the F 100 without them.

The J 6s: how many of them were armed with PL-2s? I know only that the Pakistan types were fitted with Aim-9B-P, but also that the Albanians J 6s were fitted with Pl-2s. And the Chinese examples? Could been fitted with Pl-2 or Pl-5s? And if yes, how many and how frequent?

Also, the question about the complexity of the farmer. Yes, the plane could been complex for its time and hte short life of its engines. But these engines were also very simple and rugged. I am not so sure that they were so difficult to maintain even if the life was 100 Hrs (around 6-12 months service life ). In every case, both the Albanians and the Pakistan got hundreds of these planes, and they have for forty years operated with them. If we consider that they (countries) weren’t exactly neither wealth or tecnologic advanced , this could say something.
The pakistan alone got 400000 sorties with these planes, over 1500 for J 6. This also could say something, and the fact as well that every A-5 fantan purchased by them was payed around a million dollars. with 50 millions they could even not purchase more than 1-one- Tornado and who know why this latter haven’t won any export contract except the Saudis..OK, hte IDS was a bit more sophistied than the A-5..

So i am pretty corious abot the real costs of the Mig 19-J6, expecialy if we compare this with the F-100. The history that these Migs “costs” because the short life of the parts etc. etc. isn’t so true (this not mean that the short life isn’t tecnical true).

About the range, i would say also that the pakistani ones flew with two tanks of 1150 lts each, respect of the normal 740 lts. this could say something both the range, and the load capability (atleast 2 AAMs over these tanks i suppose, and the 3 NR 30s as well).

At the end the Handling capabilitites: the albanians said that the farmer was better than the Mig 21F. The 58 deg wing is not so pilot’s friendly but the plane was a real supersonic fighter , almost the supersonic version of the Mig 17. After all, the F-100 was the extreme evolution of the sabre F-86.

I don’t know what was the rate of accident for the Mig 19-J6, but the F 100 was a really awing type. Of 2000 examples built, over 500 were lost for all the causes. even if the F-100D was much improved, and flew 400000 missions in vietnam, the early types were almost unflyable. The F 100As were afwul, the C had 85 crashes in few years, the F 100d as always rich of defects of every type. The costs was around 700000 dollars each, plus 110000 for the modifics further needed ( a F 4C of 1963 ,some years lather, was around 6 millions). So whetever were the problems with the Mig 19-J 6, the F 100 as security and operative costs couldn’t be taken as fair example of efficency.

excuse me for this raised old topic, but i think that the SF 260 worths it.
I would say to Phantom that the SF s60 max speed is only 330 km-h and the engine is 260hp, or a turboprop with around 350 hp, with a max speed of 420 km. This is barely of a fighter of 30’s not a modern A/C. its performances are better than many others but te price is too higher. The employ vs teh guerrilla in Chad wasn’t impressive. The internal weapon is not present, hte max payload is 300 kg with 2 pylons. The real weapons carried are two rockets pod or two MG pods.

One of my enjoyng is a war game with the Mustang vs the SF. The result? The mustang always wins with the SF 260W and almost always with SF 260TP. The ceiling of the two is 5000-7000mt without weapons. hte effects of eventually MG (light) on the mustang is risible while the six M2 of hte mustang could devaste the SF, the fight is much different from the zero vs corsair or so. The Sf is actually only a very light plane. From the ground, almost every shot can down it. the armour, even if present(?) is totally inadeguate and the portatle SAMs are worsened the situation.
Having said this, hte SF is a excellent acrobatic-basic trainer but not a master of the war…