nuke1At first, very good photos! Too Much!!
Flogger, it’s doubless that the AMX if proper modernized, has a role to do. In Brasil there isn’t anotehr modern jet fighter to modernize. Italy has Tornado, and will have EF 2000. So the space for AMX isn’t great. Brazil as modern fighters, after the cancellation for the new FX brasilan program has the AMX, the AMX and still the AMX.
The actual A-1 Amx is far worse than the older Fighthawks of Argentina. No wonder if it could been improved with new sistems. But when you say that the AMX is faster than the Su-25, what do you should think if i answer that the AMX had also sobstitute the F-104G in italy? Do you want compare a jet that can go at 9000mt in 5 min with a jet that can go in 90 secs to 10000? or that is supersonic even at low levels?
If there are programs to modernize stuff like the Mig 21 or the A-4 not wonder if there are also for the AMX. The problem is that this program was a subsantial failure.
In 1985, ing. Da Silva, said: “Italy and Brasil will share the world” (with the AMX sells).
Balls. Space balls. Italy press was happy to hear but the market not. If brasilians had F-16s , be sure that they don’t wants to modernize their AMX. It’s like compare a horse with a donkey. If you caompare the cost-effective of AMX to the Tornado or also the Su-25/39, be sure that this program is the worse.
nuke1Hi to all,
Mixtech has given some questionable opinions about these planes: TheAMX, The Su-25-39, and the SU-7. Arthur has already said the most about, let me remark a bit:
The Amx is , likeArthur said, a light plane attack pretending to be a fighter. This is true: In Alenia pamplets and publicity it is always regarded like a light fighter bomber, almost it is an F-16. Originally, the AMX born with Swedish collaboration but after the two countries went on different ways, luckly for the swedish. The Amx , with a spey derated and a lot of fuel, has an excellent range, even better to a F-16 with the most of combinations of fuel and weapons. But it isn’t supersonic, it isn’t all-weather-except some basics in the brasilan version but only air-to ground, and it’s hasn usually guided weapons or atleast not a wide range: originally: none.
The costs of the development of AMX, and the delays were high. If the AMX was built in the beginnings of ’80s it could been still effective. But to put such plane without any night capability at the end of cold war, and meanwhile there were stuffs like the F-16 block 42 LANTIRN, well there was a difference.
The AMX program was costly, expecially for italians and brasilians budgets, it was too late developed and teh reliability of this plane is questionability.
It’s only engine is not reliable or was so for many years, and teh life of the engine and fram was very low. At one point, the AMX showed a life frame of 1000Hrs, even less than a Mig 21, while as the contract the request was of 4000. The plane wasn’t equipped with modern weapons and sensors until the last years, it has-italy-still the Elta 2001 radar telemetric. this plane was meaned like the sostitute of G 91 but still the most pat of the operational requests were manteined: this mean no night capbiltiy, so if this is true that the AMX is a better sobstitute for the G 91 the requests are simply outdated.
The discussion about AMX-vs Sukhoy is a non sense: the Sukhoy is far easier and cheaper to mainten and buy, it is widespread and able to hit every kind of targets. It has almost the same speed of AMX and almost the same survaibility cap. of the A-10, but it remains a relatively fast jet and smaller than the A-10, so it could survive better to fighters than the A-10. It has outdated engines , but the AMx is almost old and it has only a engine. It hasn’t armour as well, so it could be something a sosbitute of Skyhawk but lacks the naval adaptions. Seeing it’s costs and it’s time this isn’t a really cost -effective plane. The market hasn’t ever liked it. Even in Italy the conclusiona are to leave this plane without mid life improvements and search for the JSF program. So i cannot see how this plane could be considered “a success”. The fact that teh AMX is much modern than the Su-25, and has better range is true, but isn’t enough to talk as “the better”. In this regard, the USAF should withdrawn all the A-10 fleet to replace them by F-16 since the last 20 years if we look nly on some capabilities. As a stiker, better the AMX, or the Jagura, but a short range strike and battle support-anti guerrilla warfare the Su-25 is far better. It’s the only aircraft that hasn’t sacrificed too much to the armour while it has a lot of it. The Il-2 or similar could have been shot by Flak SPGs, but this could be true also for A-10, AMX and Harriers. If a plane is more nimble but more vulnerable this not necessarly gives to it better capabilities of fire support.
The Sukhoy 7 was debated as effectivity. For several aspects it was a fiure or a delusion and was soon fullowed by Su-17. However, in spite of this, it had also some very good capabilities: a range better than a Mig 17-21, excellent stabiltiy, powerful guns, and an outstanding strongness of the structure, it’s only flaw is the tendence to break in two while landing without gear, because it’s lenght. Everyone that has reserched this is agrre with that.
F-18 Hamburger is a jocker fellow, i don’t thin he is a racist.
The H-7 is actually a kind of big F-1. like Arthur said, grownth to teh weight of a tornado. The F-1 was as well almost the copy of the jaguar. Being supersonic and heavier, they don’t seems alike AMX.
I think it’s a sin that the Sukhoy Su 30 has overhelmed it, because it’s an interesting aircraft. even if older
nuke1i also think that there isn’t possibility that the radar of mig was on in the ground. Generally this isn’t done by anyone. Perhaps the problem could been from chemical substances of the engine, but the radar when it is off is only a dud piece of junk like any other electric mechanism.
nuke1iran? Even it? is it true?
nuke1as the data i have, transall vs. G222 vs. C-130 vs. An-12
type: load*range—-cruise speed—–max——-level
G 222 9000 kg*1400 km.–440 kmh – -520 kmh –7600
transall 12000kg*2500 km —-? ——540 kmh —- ?
C 130 19500*4000 km –556kmh– -620kmh —10500 m
An 12 20000*3600 km — 670kmh –700+kmh –10000 m
Note that the transall is between the G 222 and the C 130H
And the An-12 is much faster than the 130 and this is not including the nice Nr 23 defensive guns, so as imrovised bomber the An 12 is better despite the lower range
and certainsly it don’t need glass bulges on the ramp to see the rear trehats: Should had it the AC-130 Hercules!!
nuke1several considerations:
-The thing about the trhust is another that impressed me. Yes, after 10 years we could expect that the engine is more powerful, but don’t forget that the kind of this engines are always the same: turbo-axial jet, not jets vs. turbofan.
-One thing really remarkably is that the AL 21F has with military , the same trhust that the older J 79 with full AB, and this with the same weight. This is impressing.
-Is it possible to say that a AL 21F without AB could be fitted in a jet like the F-4 and put the plane in supersonic like the J 79 with AB?
-Or, with the AL-21, how can be a fighter like the F-104 or the F-4(ex. T/W over 1:1)?
-The AL-21 and the R-29 not are only more powerful than a J-79, but they, despite a weight higher of 30%, are with the same class trhust as the modern types like the F-100-Al 31. This mean that they reached the edge of the power for a fighter engine, by that the imrpovements were mad mainly to imrove the SFC military, reduce the weight etc. but very few to increase the speed.
-Their SFC is higher at military but lower at full power AB, so they are more good to run in supersonic than their successors, they are also smaller.
-Another thing i know, it appears that the indians liked the R-13 engine and thinked that it was better to maintain and produce and more advanced than the Avon.
-Ultimate thing, even this topic show that it’s possible find info on the Al-21 but not of the R-29 or the R-15, despite that these are the engines of well known planes.
nuke1Balls. Erez, do you have a clue of you sayng? Do you have a clue what’s the meaning of “selective kills” of Israel? Such as fire a hellfire to a car with a guy comdamned to death by israel leadership, then fire again missiles vs. the clouth joined near the wrecks and kill a dozen of persons there? A palestinian is good only if dead, doesn’t it?
When you say seriously that things bad happens because some “bad apples” are in the army,f frustated, stupid or so, you play the same dirty game played always in these chases. If somewhat goes wrong the guilth is of a single soldier. Not of who has ordered to enter in a village and bulldoze it, but to someone that has accidentally fired to a kid killing him. some things are too much dirty to say that if something went wrong the guilth is only of the soldier xy. It’s a bit easy, not?
nuke1Greeeat post Flood. All your 11000+ are so?
nuke1My discussion is about a purely tecnical and theoretical, nothing to do with real possibilities. A bit of imagination could help.
nuke1well, the forum is big enough if proper manned, i’d say.
what i want to do is to build a forum with a organized work of knowledge. Not a confusing blablabla but a serious effort to have all the parameters available to know better the planes we talking. It’ s necessary to growth the forum’s culture. It’s enough topics like “id better this or that’?”, often with non-sistematic discussions and clueless affermations. I try to do something completely different. An enciclopedic work, but for the forum, not my pleasure only.
Few years ago, the discussions about the planes were fulls of speeds, range, agility datas, after finally it was started discussions like the radars, ECMs, weapons, costs, this because the forumers growths and puts questions more deep and slims. So i find unaffordable what one discuss about a plane without know nothing of its engine.
To me, i can put my knowledge and consideration about few types of motors, these below:
About Tu-160:
Samara NK-321
turbofan tri-axial
T° 1357 C
By pass: 1,4:1
Trust:weight: 7,35:1
Pressure: 28,4:1
Trhust AB: 25 tons
dry: 14 tons.
weight: 3,4t.
lenght: 6mt.
diam. 1,46m.
note that the trhust/weight ratio is the same of the B-1, 7,7/13,6tons. for 2 tons weight, lenght 4,6 mt. andby pass 2:1. But the russian engine is much more powerful.
Al-21F-3
turbojet axial
trhust/weight ratio.
pressure:14,75:1
trhust:75kN-108,9kN
SFC: AB, 52,5mg/Ns
dry,21,5mg/Ns
weight: 2005kg
length: 5,16m
diam.: 885mm.
Lets compare it now with the Viggen engine:
RM-8A (RM-8B)
Trhust:weight: 5,6:1 (5,75:1)
Bypass: 1,07:1 (0,97:1)
temp.: 1175 C (1250)
Lenght: 6,15m.
diam. 1,35m.
press: (B:17:1)
trhust:: 65,5/115,6kN (72/125kN)
Weight:2100kg (2220)
SFC: 17,6mg/Ns-70mg/Ns (18/71)
the Al.21 lacks the trhust inversor, but it has the same T/W rapport, and if it has SFC higher on cruise it has SFC much lesser in AB. The volume is about 3,5 cm vs. 8 of the RM-8. I would say that if the swedish could had choice, they could ha choiced for the russian one. The viggen could been designed much slimmer, as the gripen or the draken, with 5 cm(=cubic meters) less needed. If one would re-engined the viggen with the AL-21F, he, theorically could fill the viggen with the double of the fuel actually carried (5000 lt?).
nuke1let’s try again: if this topic is “celebrity death match” i guess that there must be as target items related to it. Here there are a lot of post that mean nothing about. If you aren’t interested to this topic, please continue in another part of this forum, that is so huge, and plenty of blabla that i imagine nobody should be in difficult to find a better place to post. Okay? If someone can run with a handful of brain cells he should find funny to developed this topic in proper manner, with almost infinite possibilities to discuss, and this is my intention to do.
nuke1about the smoke trails, also the J 79 ,one of the best ever buily, don’t joke..
Something about weights , dimensions etc?
My goal is to create in this topic a database to be read by everyone to be interested in tecnical of the soviet engines. The comments about their pro y contra are welcommed, but generally they are already well known. So how lacks is the knowledge about their tecnical details, and i would go in this direction
nuke1hemm,. excuse me but the topic is not exactly good for these posts. The topic is “celebrity death match”, okay? MTV program. Funny, liked or not but this is the sense of this topic. So, don’t spoil the meanings of the discussion, and the opportunities to post things regarding it sense.
If someone would say something about this program or what he would see in a program like this okay, if not there are other topics to discuss other things.
regs.
nuke1Some of my more liked: Prince vs. Prince Charles-G.W.Bush vs. the Bush-Paul Hogan vs. Mel Gibson-Hitchcoh vs. Spieldberg-The stuges brothers vs. the three tenors.
Ah, i have forgotten one of my most desired: Tom Cooper VS. Yeremy Gordon.
nuke1And best match seen? Liked? The more funny?
Sign In
