dark light

eagle

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,186 through 1,200 (of 1,837 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: MAKS – 2007 #2517077
    eagle
    Participant

    โ€œThe fact that they were jumping the queue means they canโ€™t possibly be British,โ€ he added.

    Theres your evidence. What a briliant conclusion ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

    in reply to: Swiss Hunters #2517270
    eagle
    Participant

    Thanks for the info qwerty!

    PII, I havent seen a pic with Sidewinders loaded on the innermost pylons. It would make sense though.

    in reply to: Swiss Hunters #2517501
    eagle
    Participant

    Some interesting Swiss Hunter pics here:
    http://www.alerie.ch/
    and here:
    http://www.swissjet.ch/ZZ_HunterCountry_d.html

    As you can see, the Hunter has at least 3 pylons per wing and possibly even 4, with the 4th located where qwerty described.

    Or are there even 3 dedicated rocket pylons on the outer wings? That looks like attachement points:
    http://www.swissjet.ch/1024/Hunter-Country/FMk58/20010801_J4086.jpg

    in reply to: The Indian MMRCA Saga #2517502
    eagle
    Participant

    I was thinking 50-60% internal fuel with the rest in weapons, somewhat an air defence patrol.

    I see, its just that I dont usually add internal fuel to the payload.

    I thought perhaps the Super Hornet might have a good chance at it? ONe under the belly?

    The largest SH store is the 480 gallon tank which is maybe about 1600kg, so I dont think so.

    F-16 is about the same, with two hardpoints stressed for 1590 kg at a maximum of 5.5g

    The F-16 has 4 heavy stations with the inner wing pylons capable of carrying the 600gal tanks.

    in reply to: The Indian MMRCA Saga #2517805
    eagle
    Participant

    The MiG 29k with max payload of 5500kg has a TWR of 1.09 (and I don’t know if it can take off with that much). The Shornet with the same payload is better off – 1.12 and the Rafale is @ 1.00 from just real quick calculations. If either the Shornet of the Rafale start carrying more (which they are designed to do) I doubt they’ll manage it.
    USS.

    Your TWR figures are without any payload, just with internal fuel.
    The SH with about 0.95 (with full internal fuel) doesnt shine here though its take-off distance at air shows is really low.

    The weight I found for Brahmos is 2500 kg and that is something all candidates would be able to carry. Even F-16 and Gripen could technically carry two of them. The main issue is integration, the cost and access to source codes.

    The F-15E may be able to carry a 2500kg store, but certainly not the F-16 or the Gripen or any other Western fighter.

    in reply to: Boyd's E-M Theory #2517953
    eagle
    Participant

    The early MiG-29 used a similar configuration to the F-15 and MiG-25, and this was because the F-15 and MiG-25 are not as different as you think, both fighters are basicly the same aerodynamic configuration, and both designs have been tailored to execute different missions due to difference in technology, while the MiG-25 is a Mid 1960s aircraft the F-15 is an early 1970s aircraft the difference in technology made them different in capabilities.

    Its rather the different requirements.
    And I’m pretty sure the MiG-25 and the F-15 have quite different airfoils.

    the MiG-25 is built mostly of steel, the F-15 uses mainly titanium and aluminun, Since the MiG-25 has a heavier airframe it has a worst thrust to weight ratio even when both aircraft have engines with the same yield.

    If fhe MiG-25 needed a good twr, it would have it.

    Boyd theories would not have been put in to practice if the F-15 would had been built mainly of steel.

    F-16?
    The F-15 wouldnt have been built with steel because that would result in a bad air superiority fighter.

    however the MiG-31 has better missiles than the F-15 and has a sustained Mach 2.3 capability, that is enough to say the MiG-31 can kill F-15s

    So what, the Harrier has a sustained Mach ~0.9 speed and thats enough to kill an F-15. And saying the missiles of the MiG-31 are better than the F-15 is a broad statement.

    in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued…… #2518302
    eagle
    Participant

    I found the weapons of the MiG-29A always very conclusive, especially when one considers its primary theatre of operations and the number envisioned by the air force. The weapons load of an F-15 was not well placed, as it does not have the ability to keep distance in such crowded environment expected in Europe. And visual identification would be required most of the time. Europe would work at low level, low radius, many aircraft, much AAA and SAM. Very hostile for a fighter with semi-active BVR weapons. The Germans cancelled the Sparrow on their Phantoms.

    Whats wrong with the weapons of the F-15? You can always let two of the Sparrows at home if you wish to carry the same load the MiG-29 does. ๐Ÿ˜‰
    Besides, in a rear aspect engagement at low level, medium range weapons are becoming WVR very quick which makes them useful even in a strict RoE environment. I cant remember the exact range, but I think its well below 10km for a Sparrow.

    in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued…… #2518494
    eagle
    Participant

    It depends on, what the inlet-system does allow, when coating is no limiting factor. 90% of the available thrust comes from the inlet- outlet-system at speeds of Mach 2+.

    And that inlet system is optimized for Mach 1.5, not for subsonic speeds like other fixed inlets. Coupled with near turbojet engines and it gets interesting.
    1600mph doesnt sound bad.

    F-22: 14-15ton

    Its more like 18+ tons.
    6-8 internal missiles plus all the gizmos requires an F-35 sized airframe. With two engines probably a bit more, so 13-14 tons is the minimum imho.
    The proposed engines deliver around 14 tons of thrust which gives a good indication of empty weight.

    in reply to: The Hunters Are Back! (Lebanon) #2518517
    eagle
    Participant

    Pretty cool.
    The local airport museum is flying the mighty Hunter too.
    Maybe the Lebanese Air Force wants to get some expertise. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued…… #2518518
    eagle
    Participant

    Only if you want to cruise there for extended periods. An aluminum airframe will handle brief excursions of a couple minutes or so up to much higher than Mach 2 without issue.

    I’d say aluminium is not the limiting factor for the F-22 and probably not for the PAK-FA.
    I really wonder how fast the Raptor could go… ๐Ÿ˜Ž

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news #2520412
    eagle
    Participant

    Because we all know they’ll make sure to hang them both on the Raptor if it’s going to go into air combat. :rolleyes:

    But there was no encounter. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Besides, they might be used to give the opponent a chance. ๐Ÿ˜€

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news #2520416
    eagle
    Participant

    But how about Thrust Vectoring? F-22 is probably more agile over more of the low speed/WVR envelope.

    Likely, but theres no need for the EF to enter the fight at low speed.
    At medium speed (i.e. high subsonic), the TVC doesnt help much.

    And how much can Typhoon exploit ASRAAM’s capabilities without a helmet?

    Its IIR seeker head gives it better chances to achieve a lock, esp. when fired in a head-on engagement. It has also more range and is more resistant to countermeasures.
    But when the need arises, I’m sure the Raptor would get the X-Sidewinder in no time (without helmet of course).

    Who has the better DASS in this particular environment?

    EF obviously ๐Ÿ˜€
    But this area is highly speculative anyway.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news #2520563
    eagle
    Participant

    While i dont have a reason to question that an EF armed with similar weapons could be an equaliser to raptor in WVR (just like most other agile fighters), tracking a raptor from 80 miles is somewhat questionable; either Raptor must have a larger RCS than previously claimed or EF might have an extraordinarlity powerful radar.

    Currently, the EF has ASRAAM, the Raptor M/L Sidewinders which are inferior. The EF is smaller meaning more difficult lock on with mk1 eyeball. Therefore, advantage in WVR is with EF imho.

    As for tracking a Raptor at 80 miles, I guess thats possible if it carries fuel tanks or the RCS increaser visible in the pic below.

    in reply to: Japan to consider F/A-22 to replace its F-4s #2520571
    eagle
    Participant

    Meh, just to spite the nay-sayers, here’s the fantastic mock-up glanini posted sometime ago in a thread on Japan and the Typhoon.

    Looks nice, but the Pirate is on the wrong side.
    Also, it seems they want a fighter so that beautiful blue camo is more likely to be more greyish. ๐Ÿ™
    Further, the EF offers little over what Japan already has. If they chose a non-stealthy fighter, it should be the F-2 imho (or the F-15 of course ๐Ÿ˜€ )

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news #2521474
    eagle
    Participant

    I suppose the root of the question is does the rafale still have its flight preformance close to the typhoon when loaded?, or does it significantly “drop off”, so to speak.

    There are reports about the Rafales handling qualities when loaded with 3 large drop tanks and two Scalp cruise missiles. According to those, it still flies very well.
    But of course, every plane looses flight performance when loaded, EF or Rafale or anything else. Though theres still enough performance left to make a good show.
    Btw, if you run into trouble (i.e. enemy fighters), you are going to drop the bombs anyway.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,186 through 1,200 (of 1,837 total)