dark light

Y-20 Bacon

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 1,779 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2204059
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/liberman-unveils-israels-future-stealth-fighter-the-f-35/

    Jewish F-35 IS FINALLY HERE AND IT’S BORING!

    http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2016/06/Israel-F-35-Adir-Debut-Profile-1.jpg

    yeah we were all hoping for this

    https://fightersweep.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ofer-shafir-double-formation-passes-shot-sky-2-00020.jpg

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2204064
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    I

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]246662[/ATTACH]

    And just for fun, here is the picture where we can see the difference in vapor condensation during the turn between Su-30SM and Su-35S.

    why is that?
    is it simply because it is a single seater with no canards?

    in reply to: Kazakhstan Air Force in 2020 #2204069
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    did they get any weapons for them? always see them empty.

    wish they spent a little more and got the su-35s instead.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2205479
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    really good looking aircraft. glad china is moving on with it!

    one can’t help but feel it looks alot like the C-2. Similar size..
    Except with 4 weaker engines and almost twice the weight.

    in reply to: USAF T-X #2205733
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    What I liked about T-38A was its ultra compact design. The T-50A and T-100 are wider and thicker than most people realize. There is quite a bit of hollow space in either design, making them nearly as large as full size fighters. I bet you could keep a nice slim design by keeping to a smaller girth and using a canard layout like on Eurofighter Typhoon. A single underbody, fixed intake. Thin LERX extending to nose. Delta wing is simpler to design, and easier to design for fatigue resistance. Also, gives room for fuel and it’s a design that allows for excellent instant turn rates. The trick is getting it to sustain the turn to match KPP.

    its probably because KAI and Aermacchi had intended for their designs to be used as combat aicraft with little modifications, while the T-38 had to be totally modified to become the F-5.
    Looking at their empty weight, the Golden Eagle is almost twice that of the T-38!! The much shorter M-346 is also a fatty.

    im really excited about the T-X.
    we haven’t had a competition filled with new fresh designs (and 2 that are modifications of old ones) since the JSF competition.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2205738
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    The main difference IMHO is the taller cockpit a

    its the same cockpit

    in reply to: USAF T-X #2156484
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    It’s Russian… 🙂

    (Though, original Yak-130 looked bit different and Italianized one is IMO slightly better looking.)

    I also agree, the first Yak0130 was the best looking

    http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/yakovlev_yak130_l1.jpg

    the regular 130 and the M-346.. meh roughly the same to me.
    Some one who claimed to be an engineer on the m-346 program a few years ago, made a long post about why he thought the M-346 was a better evolution of the original yak-130 design than the production yak-130.
    I forgot what he said exactly..but he mentioned a lot about the intakes, FOD, and other systems

    that said, it seems the T-50 woudl be better for air forces that need both a lead in trainer and attack/fighter secondary roles.
    usually those countries that are too poor to afford both like Philippines

    M-346 probably cheaper than the T-50, and better suited for better equiped air forces

    in reply to: USAF T-X #2156515
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/8/2/2667280.jpg

    Kind of ugly compared to T-100 design

    I wonder why Israel is still living in the 1960s and adopted that camoflage
    http://geta-o.jp/USMIL/F/F-106/72494%2895fis%29f-106a-s10.jpg

    I also agree.. the Golden Eagle is boring and kind of ugly. even in its Korean form (but I like the aircraft itself).
    the M-346 and the Yakkie version are the best looking modern trainer out right now.

    http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/original_M346_PL_03_g.jpg
    https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/678/23159563064_e0f907f21a_b.jpg

    in reply to: Ranking aircraft manufacturers by after sales support #2156518
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    I think it is really hard to compare these parameters as there are not enough data. India did struggle with it’s MiG-29 fleet but country that sold them had disappeared, but this was 20 years ago. IIRC Poland has been struggling with F-16 spares. South Africa struggles to operate the Gripen due to financing… there are loads of different circumstances.

    those are customer side problems not supplier side problems

    we are talking about support which is from the supplier side.
    South Africa’s problems with the Gripens are caused by themselves, not Saab.

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2158012
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    My best bet:

    Today’s fleet – Su-30MKM, MiG-29N, F/A-18D, Hawk Mk108/208, MB339CM
    Future fleet – Su-30MKM (Super-30), Rafale, M-346

    this makes a lot of sense. its also a set up India will use, giving the Malaysians some commonality with another operator of both.

    but the Malaysians also don’t make sense. They’ll probably say. M-346 is used by Singapore and Israel, ew.
    maybe they’ll go Yak-130, T-50 or whatever the US decides on for TX. I don’t think they’ll choose a US type for a major fighter, but probably willing to settle if its a trainer.

    in reply to: Vietnamese Air Force #2160754
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    There is a critical factor in sales of aircraft is the cost and have perpetuated

    COST OF FLYING;

    F-16 aircraft cost the Air Force Korean, or Egyptian 720 000 per year by dividing the number of flying hours to 200 h becomes a cost of $ 3600 per flight hour is believed that the latest model F-16Block52 + flight hour has Talakafp 4500-5000 dollars.

    Mirage 2000 will realize this to some $ 2700 for an hour flight but it is believed that the figure rose for the models of Mirage-2000-5MK2 / 9 and appreciated to $ 5000.

    Hour flight Rafale estimated value of $ 14,000 is French and the Brazilians and their clients they are working to reduce the cost per flight hour to no more than 15% of the cost per flight hour for the Mirage 2000.

    F-15 flight-hour cost her $ 17000.
    The cost of thousands of 22-hour flight with 19 000

    Aliorvitr said in marketing them to flight hour with $ 15000, but the data which comes from Austria and Germany show that it ranges between $ 33000 and 73 000 euros, a significant figures illustrate the great escape with the Alliance of manufactured especially with the global financial crisis, which does not allow Bastzaf resources the Air Force even in the countries Europe, which entered the state, including income equivalent to the Arab countries combined.

    The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected . The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected. With the price is 73 992 per flight hour , almost twice as high as originally planned With the price is 73 992 per flight hour, almost twice as high as originally planned

    Gripen NG model will not exceed $ 3000, making it the cheaper the cost of aircraft so far.

    MiG-29 flying hour is estimated to have $ 5500

    Sukhois 27/30 cost per flight hour with $ 7000, but believed that he had up to 14000 dollars for the latest Trzac of Sukhois 30-35. US Private operators of the Su-27 report it costs around 30,000 per hour to run

    Chinese aircraft to extend data on the cost per flight hour does not publish on the Internet, but aircraft and single engine F-C-1 and Jian-10 is estimated it will be in levels of thousands of 16 for it and a single-engine general aircraft bombed the Chinese old short thousands of MIC-1 is equal to 4000 flight hours

    Source: http://defence.pk/threads/cost-of-buying-operating-fighters.84507/#ixzz49oLYcD1y

    in reply to: Vietnamese Air Force #2161094
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    The problem is that the light fighter shall be more expensive to buy and to operate than the Su-30s.
    .

    Philippines paid roughly 35 million for the FA-50
    so how much do the SU-30s cost to buy and operate?

    Its a bit far fetch to think a heavy fighter is cheaper to operate than a light fighter unless there are things like spares shortages.

    in reply to: Vietnamese Air Force #2161255
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    Just to clarify:

    The deficit with China stands around 25b$

    And not related and IMOHO only, the perfect fighter buy (the most synergetic) would be with the Teja.

    Source:
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/balance-of-trade

    yeah, they probably may not buy US outright, but something with US components more likely.
    Its a good opportunity for Vietnam to buy something Russia doesn’t have strong offerings, like a light fighter.
    Vietnam and India probably good strategic partner, but Tejas probably won’t be ready until 2030.
    Maybe a better option are Gripen Cs or even more cheaper, FA-50s from Korea.
    Su-30MKs to protect Vietnam’s vast maritime territory, and FA-50s for border patrol, good combo. Maybe get them with some TA-50s for training too.

    in reply to: Vietnamese Air Force #2162173
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    Obammy lifts arms ban to Vietnam.

    so what be on their shopping list?

    f-16s to replace Mig-21s?
    P-8s to sink Chinese submarines?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2162175
    Y-20 Bacon
    Participant

    Eh, nope. The Mk.1 people have always complained about the frame itself, so far all we have listed are mostly progressions between a prototype and serial frame. RAM? Not applied (atleast fully) on prototypes. Zig zag panellines? Same. Stealthy round exhaust, none on X-35/T-50 prototypes. Radar blocker? We all knew it would come.

    The only thing that comes close to what you are describing was the KS-O/-V being faceted. Which i personally dont feel is needed (although it would *look* cool) especially with the solution of V in mind.

    I remember when it was first unveiled, most of us were accepting of what it was.
    But then we had a dyslexic utah weeaboo who was like “**** yeah, F-35 killer! eat that! i can barely stay awake, but final product will have s ducks, square engines”
    and then the Indians who were like “lets photoshop this into a two seater with square engines”
    and the Chinese who were like “ok here’s a diagram of the flanker and of the pak-fa, spot the similarities”

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 1,779 total)