dark light

mack8

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,066 through 1,080 (of 2,087 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2313046
    mack8
    Participant

    You meen this one ?

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2654/3928506353_eba0098633.jpg

    Speaking of pictures , the other night i’ve found somewhere a picture of it loaded with jammer and Antilope pods under intakes , AS-30L, Magics and drop tanks underwing, and LGBs under the fuselage ( not the black and white one posted on this forum), taken roughly from the front , in flight , but i can’t remember where now! I should have saved it.

    in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2313100
    mack8
    Participant

    A scenario in which both the Mirage-4000 and the Rafale can co-exist imo ( roughly as we know it, relatively small to fit carriers) is one in which France buys Mirage-4000 strike derivatives in lieu of Mirage-2000D/N, or maybe in lieu of just the Ns etc. It would certainly be more survivable and boast a longer reach than either Mirage-2000s. Assuming the same money as for the Mirage-2000D/N would be available, perhaps they would only buy say 2/3rds of the numbers, maybe less.

    Still, would have been rather interesting seeing it in the colours of (potentially) Iraq(:diablo:), Saudi Arabia, maybe India, maybe others aswell. ( although that would meen taking some slices away from Su-30 …hmmm.)

    Anyway, so nothing in the contemporary press or nothing definitive about Mirage-4000’s air-to-air typical loadout of Super-530s and Magics? MadRat says 4 of each and 2 drop tanks , but i see 6 hardpoints under the wings only. Can it carry A-A missile under the intakes aswell ? To my knowledge , the Super-530 cannot be carried in tandem right ? (thinking it can somehow carry Super-530s in tandem under the fuselage a la Rafale).

    Managed to find a picture of it i think during Le Bourget 1981 with 2 Super-530 shown in front of it, but that’s a far as i got.

    in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2313231
    mack8
    Participant

    Too bad Iraq didn’t order Mirage 4000s, it would have made short work of Iran’s tomcats :diablo:

    Forget about iranian Tomcats, maybe make short work of the F-15s and F-16s and F-18s! :diablo:

    Anyway, that aside, i have a question which i hope our french aviation experts here would be kind to help with. Namely, how many BVR weapons ( Super-530 F/D specifically) and on which stations was the Mirage-4000 suposed to carry in a typical interceptor configuration? Are there are diagrams or models with the air to air loadouts anywhere?

    I have managed (after looking the net far and wide) to find quite some impressive pictures from the eighties of it armed to the teeth for attack missions (no, not the one with 6 Magics), but couldn’t find anything showing it armed with Super-530s.

    Thanks.:)

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2315531
    mack8
    Participant

    French inspired. Back in the day , they developed these fuel tanks than you could hang bombs from, or that had a SNEB launcher at the front.

    Check the Mirage-5 pic (scroll) :

    http://www.portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1624&start=30

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 21 #2316477
    mack8
    Participant

    And just a nice pic to go with this new episode.:)

    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6604/11549890.40/0_713c5_20f12abb_XXXL

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread 9 #2316486
    mack8
    Participant

    You mean like this:

    http://img11.nnm.ru/7/d/1/c/1/9d0a255709365deee2922fa1620.jpg

    The MiG 1.42 is a true contemporary of the Eurofighter and if all had gone to plan should’ve flown within 6 months of the EF’s first flight (autumn 1994), it’s certainly a more advanced design, but not being in the same league as the ATF contenders contributed to the programme’s downfall. No money+no requirement = no hope.

    I think a scaled down 1.44 strongly reminiscent of the above drawing would make an excellent ‘Fulcrum’ replacement.

    A huge thanks!! You can even ‘see’ the S-ducks! 😮

    May i ask what is that picture suposed to represent, is that fanart or a sketch of a real version or developement of the MFI?:eek: Thanks.

    PS: regarding a scaled down MFI, back in the eighties they had just such an aircraft planned, a “baby-MFI” with a ventral intake and one AL-41F.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2316491
    mack8
    Participant

    I agree.

    4 missiles it is. Done.

    I consider this a disadvantage , I know my opinion does’t count for anything but here it is.

    Anyone agrees or disagrees I’d like to hear other opinions

    What would be the point of continuing this, you obviously have your own opinions about this aircraft, and doubt anything will change them even if proved wrong. 🙂

    I would more like to hear news about the latest flights , those IFR trials, anything about the bird and the programme itself.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2324663
    mack8
    Participant

    What happened to T-50-1?

    It’s been a long time since her last appearance in a public photo.

    Rumour is some structural problems have been discovered right during or shortly after the last MAKS, and it’s been grounded since presumably to inspect /correct those faults. But this is the rumour, it may be not be 100% true.

    Still, if it will get back to flying ( and some very demanding flying at that ) then i guess the problems have been rectified?

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2324980
    mack8
    Participant

    Thanks to Tango III for pointing it out , T-50-2 engaged in initial IFR trials, T-50-1 to start flying again soon for high AOA trials, supermaneuverbility trials.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120821/175341583.html

    Sukhoi press release:

    http://sukhoi.org/news/company/?id=4950

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2325716
    mack8
    Participant

    The 9X has to come off the rail and turn quickly due to a short burn time on the motor. The AMRAAM does not have this problem as it has a much longer burn motor. Throw in a larger warhead (2x the Aim-9 size) and double the 9x speed and it is a very formidable WVR missile.

    OK, supose you’re a Rafale (or any other comparable gen. fighter) chasing an F-35 a few miles behind , and this EODAS thingie actually works as advertised and detects the Rafale and launches an AMRAAM at the Rafale. What do you think it will stop the Rafale from having a Mica-IR after that forward-going-then-looping-AMRAAM? Perfect target with that burning motor in wonderful view isn’t it ?

    I’m sure some of the smarter folks here can calculate how long it will take for the AMRAAM to loop and for a MICA-IR, or other current generation IR missile, to intercept it?

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2325718
    mack8
    Participant

    Lets look at the latest (Dec 2011) SAR.

    Given that decline over 1 year, the question then is what will the increase be once F-35 enters large volume multiyear buys, and LM have also leaned the production lessons of the LRIP years.

    LM will squeeze out of anyone buying their “wonder” as much money as they can to fill their pockets. If they can somehow get away with getting say 150 million per FRP copy, what do you think it will stop them from doing it?

    The worst hit will be of course these small countries like Norway etc., or countries that do not have 700 billion or more to spend on weapons every year (i don’t count the israelis , they’re getting them for free anyway , so …).

    You’ll see. Hopefully we’ll still be around in 2020 f.e., to see who was right. 🙂

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2326189
    mack8
    Participant

    So looks like you’re wasting time in the middle of the working day ( well other’s time anyway) on the net from your very “F-35 involved” job*, Dickson ? My my , does your supervisor* know?

    *imaginary , of course.

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2326206
    mack8
    Participant

    I’ve read somewhere that “NATO” ( read, US ) killed more civilians (in the thousands) than actual serbian soldiers (a few hundred) , and only a few dozens each of tanks and IFV and other military targets, despite the much hyped up numbers they were bragging about. Don’t remember from the top of my head how many of the SAM launchers they destroyed, maybe some of our serbian members can help, but they were a threat to “NATO” until the last hour of the 78 day air siege.

    Imagine the serbians having something like the 1991 Iraqi AF and AD and ground forces equipment (numbers i meen) . Jesus Christ they would have overun the surrounding “NATO” bases in those 78 days! 😀

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2327073
    mack8
    Participant

    Pretty sure there’s a vid on the 12th of august evolution also showing the smoke. If i’m correct, it’s been touched shortly on russian fora , aparently it’s the APU, or something like that. (hopefully our russian friends here can help)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T2dz2tGQVI&feature=player_embedded

    Saw that on the livestream aswell .

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2327169
    mack8
    Participant

    Um…pretty sure our russian friends can confirm here , but my understanding is that so far the total indian contribution to the program is the $295 millions for the PMI’s R&D.

    Perhaps it is PLANNED for them to contribute 50% (or whatever percentage it is) which i suspect it has to do with PMI only not the overall PAK-FA programme. But feel free to correct me.

    And as a sidenote , while i have great respect for the Indians and their stubborn independence/non-alignment struggle, and for having the 4th most powerful AF in the world, if LCA (a friggin’ little light fighter) is indicative of indian aerospace’s current capacity , it doesn’t look terribly encouraging. Let’s hope things will improve for Rafale licence production, AMCA and PMI.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,066 through 1,080 (of 2,087 total)