Page 104 – Key Publishing

Y-20 Bacon

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,546 through 1,560 (of 1,779 total)

← 1 2 3 … 103 104 105 … 117 118 119 →

Author

Posts
June 1, 2013 at 9:35 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262054

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

.

I suggest you re-read my post, cause you clearly don’t get my point.
I said the Original Mig-35, not the watered Down Mig-29KUB..
Longer range, more fuel, larger wings, more lift, higher thrust etc
And due to the slow Flanker Production, such Mig-35 would indeed be a Nice supplement to the current Flanker Fleet.

I read it and thats why the point still stands duh.
why would some one go for a longer range, more fuel, larger wing, higher thrust mig when the Flanker already provides that?
not to mention the other issues that TR1 brought up.
See F-16XL vs F-15E. the F-15E was the right choice, but too many people won’t let the XL go because they are blinded by its sexiness. However the USAF analysis is exactly as what TR1 pointed out.

June 1, 2013 at 7:57 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262146

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

It is not over 10. as MIG-29K was sent to IN starting in 2009. IDF F-16 starts around 2004. Now days aircraft development is measured by its electronics/engine power supply/standoff weopons integration. it is long time UAE considering Rafale. once they sign it and actual deliveries start than we will see. by that time MIG-35 will be further modernized.

re read what I wrote.

June 1, 2013 at 7:49 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262150

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

F-16CFT is i believe Israel that become operational in early part of 21st century. those with big spine enhanced electronics increase MTOW. MIG-29K/MIG-35 within 7 years of F-16 development.
MIG-29K has provided economy of scale and clearly a superior product that IN wanted despite paying $3b for old aircraft carier.
MIG has alot of export potential even now in hundreds.
Rafale is failure even if it get export order as that order will be very slow to implement. there is no prospect of enhanced engine. no big spine or nose. lack supersonic ARM/Antiship. not even Arabs will consider it currently.

you are right, its over 10 years not 20.
mig-29k is a recent export order (as in within the last 5 years).
UAE is considering Rafale, they are Arab.

June 1, 2013 at 7:46 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262152

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

It seems both Bacon “Mig-29 hater”, and flyboy are totaly missing the point here.

again slanderous remarks from some one who is such a biased fan boy, pushing the mig-29 to every single air force regardless of their funding and personnel situation.
I’m fine with the Mig-29 for the Russian Navy as the choice it should’ve went with from the beginning… or at least until Flanker_man made some convincing arguments about the Su-33.

The need and prospect of the originaly “Tactical short range fighter” within the VVS is dead. It died a silent Death over a decade ago, perhaps even as far back as the last days of SU.
The Future VVS does not need or want any smaller medium short legged multirole fighter.

okay so you acknowledge the older mig-29s are irrelevant to the future vvs since its a short legged fighter

And no it does not turn it into another Flanker.. The Mig-35 could be a good supplement to the VVS flanker Fleet.

and how exactly will it be a good supplement?

But sadly, what VVS get is just another Mig-29KUB..

are you really surprised?

June 1, 2013 at 7:13 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262176

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

Doing that would just bring the MiG-35 closer to a heavy Fighter which Russia already operates and offers for export. If anything MiG should be trying to implement new ways to reduce operating cost and try to differentiate the MiG-35 from the Flanker family as much as possible.

hm yes that’s exactly it. original mig-29 was quite heavy already, and 35 would make it reach heavy weight.. in which if its becoming like a flanker, then go with a flanker instead.
a flanker is better at being a flanker than a fulcrum.

June 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262179

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130531/181443413/MiG-Signs-Attack-Drone-RD-Contract.html
–
MiG Signs Attack Drone R&D Contract

Russian military aircraft maker MiG is to go ahead with a research-and-development project for an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) based on its Skat prototype, after signing a deal with the Industry and Trade Ministry earlier this month, the firm said Friday.

MiG also plans to sign a contract in June with the Defense Ministry for 37 MiG-35 multirole fighter jets, Korotkov said, with delivery of 24 of them to take place in “the near future.”
The new fighters will include the Zhuk-A radar system, he said.

this is good news!
but they should really change its name.. its really unfortunate.

it should be SKAAT, with an extra A.

June 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262182

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

what exactly late with MIG-29K/MIG-35. It is reasonably priced. Both have stronger engines/radar and better loaded flight performance than F-16CFT/Rafale. There is very good export prospects provided production line can made them faster.

because F-16 with CFTs has been out for almost 2 decades and dominate the export market with its economies of scale and widely available parts.
Those who can’t go for it went with Flankers.. it don’t need CFTs because it doesn’t have a range problem.
Rafale, well until the India deal is finalized, its been an export failure.

June 1, 2013 at 7:08 pm in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2262186

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

Other thoughts regarding this MiG contract:

– Skat revival: GOOD! I thought Skat was a surprisingly competent design, development of which should never have been interrupted in the first place. Rather than subsidising the MiG-29M airframe which had pretty much missed its window of opportunity on the international market by 2005, when the Eurocanards started to become realistic prospects, this UCAV should have been pursued aggressively.
– MiG-35 order: Pointless IMHO, especially in such pathetic numbers. 24 additional MiG-29K for the navy would be far more useful, or spend the money on giving the batch already on order the best possible avionics fit (preferably both!).

It’s sad really, when the MiG-29M/K failed to catch on in the late 1980s and early 1990s it put MiG on the wrong foot, and that appears to have remained so ever since – always coming a step too late with certain projects and being too slow to adapt. Sukhoi’s much cited political clout may have contributed, but there’s no denying that the company was also severely mismanaged in its own right.

you make too much sense Trident, but the fulcrum lobby here won’t accept your rationality.

June 1, 2013 at 6:18 pm in reply to: Your Favorite Hornet/Super Hornet pics. #2262256

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

I’ll try again…

I know I’m going to regret asking this, but how is what you said in an earlier post regarding the AIM-120’s not just repeating what I said?

if you know you’re going to regret it why do you even bother?
look we know you’re in love with F-18 Growler, but you should really take your inquiries about his language to PM and stop diverting from this thread’s topic. The mods have constantly warned you about this. k thx.

June 1, 2013 at 6:05 pm in reply to: What if: North Vietnam received MiG-23s #2262265

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords First MiG-23s to Syria in autum 1974 after Separation of Forces between Israel and Syria May 31, 1974.

Well if you want to play Wikipedia..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23#Syria

The first MiG-23s were supplied to Syria on 14 October 1973, when two MiG-23MSs and two MiG-23UBs were shipped in crates, aboard An-12B transports.

ACIG also confirms this

Interestingly, however, this was first supplied to Syria, to which two MiG-23MS and two MiG-23UB two-seaters were shipped in crates on 14 October 1973 aboard two An-12B transports, which landed at al-Mazzah AB. But, before these four aircraft could be assembled, flight-tested and their crews were combat ready, the war with Israel was – formally – over.

so given that 6 month training that was brought up.. Vietnamese MiG-23s could have been ready by spring 1974. Although perhaps thats too late to make a difference in the Vietnam air war if Freejob is right.

June 1, 2013 at 12:38 am in reply to: KF-X a (missed) opportunity for Spain and Germany ? #2262619

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

In the end it is irrelevant if the Luftwaffe has an immidiate need for a 5g fighter. Without any new programme anywhere in sight there will be no local skillbase left to design and build a Typhoon replacement. KF-X is in my opinion the cheapest way to built a bridge into the future. And by accident the Luftwaffe may even end up with a useful weapon system.
Korea and Germany have very similar requirenments. As cheap as possible, full acces to source codes etc. and interoperability with NATO(US) forces.

why not TFX? at this stage both KFX and TFX are powerpoint fighters.
both will probably use the same engines.

but Turkey and Germany have a longer history together since they were allies in WWI, and semi-allies in WW2.
much of Berlin is Turkish!
Germans wouldnt work well with Koreans anyways. Koreans still upset with Germany being allies with its main historic enemy. Korea should work with Ireland instead.

May 31, 2013 at 7:37 pm in reply to: Your Favorite Hornet/Super Hornet pics. #2262810

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

Hmmm… Mabey you should put F-18 into F/A-18 prototype. I got a little bit of photos from the SuperHornet/Hormet prototypes. Here’s a Super Hornet prototype with Red and White colors during its flight testing around 1998.

thanks just putting f-18 was better.
was quite nice when it first came out.. then quite envious when our neighboring country got some hornets and we were stuck with crap.

May 31, 2013 at 7:32 pm in reply to: KF-X a (missed) opportunity for Spain and Germany ? #2262843

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

Meh…
KF-X without internal weapons has no advantage over F/A-18E/F.

the 2nd tranche should have an internal bay.

why it doesn’t have an internal bay from the get-go.. I have no idea..
the J-31 could do it.. why not KFX..

May 31, 2013 at 7:29 pm in reply to: Your Favorite Hornet/Super Hornet pics. #2262852

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

hornet picture request:

a long time ago as a youth
the Hornet was just being tested and there were two in completely white color.
one that was white with blue tipped tail, and the other with red tipped tail. these must’ve been prototypes or something
but I can’t find it. googling prototype f/a-18 just gets me the YF-17, which it is not.

here’s a small picture of the red one

May 31, 2013 at 7:21 pm in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread 20 #2262867

Y-20 Bacon
Participant

The latest Tejas news made the general aviation news and not India’s dedicated thread??

because Indians are skeptical of any dates given the history of Tejas
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,546 through 1,560 (of 1,779 total)

← 1 2 3 … 103 104 105 … 117 118 119 →