Key Publishing

f4ephantom

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

Author

Posts
April 7, 2005 at 4:50 pm in reply to: F-16 Block 50/52 Vs Mirage 2000-5mk2 #2621886

f4ephantom
Participant

Mirage 2000-5 & F-16 Blk 52 are closely matched.
The MICA will definatly give the Mirage a poweful punch at medium and short ranges.

However, an F-16E/F Blk 60 with AESA radar and expanded payload capabilities would most likely beat the mirage

March 22, 2005 at 11:33 pm in reply to: Rafale vs. Eurofighter in BVR #2630499

f4ephantom
Participant

MICA EM versus AIM-120C5 or C6

MICA has a range of 27 nm / 31 miles or 50 km, weighs 242 lbs, 10 ft long (only a little longer than an AIM-9), and has INS for long-range intercepts, and has ECCM
20 kg warhead

10-12 can be carried by Rafales at a time (some sites say that the Rafale has 13-14 hard points, but i have only counted 12)
Fits the role of the AMRAAM and ASRAAM in one missile, has TVC.

AIM-120C
21 kg warhead, Weighs 346 lbs (157kg) and has a range of 50 km or 30 miles

MICA seems to beat out the AMRAAM, however the AIM-120C-8 or AIM-120D will probaly match if not overcome Meteors projected capabilities

March 22, 2005 at 9:13 pm in reply to: Rafale vs. Eurofighter in BVR #2630603

f4ephantom
Participant

Both seem very close in perofrmance, as stated above by many ppl.

Right now, it would seem as the disscussion would really be about MICA versus AMRAAM until Meteor becomes operational.
I think that the MICA EM has the edge over AMRAAM because it has newer technology, and is much lighter than AMRAAM, and is more manuverable and also effective at short ranges.
A rafale can carry all MICA’s on its hard points, instead of having to carry short and medium range missiles because the MICA EM/IR can be used as an off-boresight Short range missile, and an advanced medium range missile, making the MICA more versatile and cost-effective.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but dosent AMRAAM have a slightly bigger range than MICA?

March 21, 2005 at 11:23 pm in reply to: Rafale vs. Eurofighter in BVR #2631240

f4ephantom
Participant

Jwcook,
That Eurofighter site puts Rafale aty a 50% in BVR, and the Eurofighter at 82%.
How could the Eurofighter be that much better at BVR if they are so similar?
Unless your comparing an F1 Rafale with a Tranche 2 or tranche 3. :rolleyes:

I think that in the near future, both aircraft will be very closley matched.
If the Rafale employs the Spectra, and if it gets the M88-3, and if the Eurofighter gets its AESA radar, then it will be fuel consumption / supercruising abilities and how many weapons each plane can carry, which so far is similar.

Does anyone have anymore information on the Rafale and Eurofighter radars?
I searched the web and did not find many details on them.

July 15, 2004 at 6:44 pm in reply to: ramjet a2a missiles #2060739

f4ephantom
Participant

R-77M was suppose to be a longer range ram-jet powered version of the R-77, but do to financial problems, the project was cancelled.
The PL-12 (SD-10) is being made jointly by China and Russia, and is suppose to be ram-jet powered. The PL-12 might be the R-77M…

FMRAAM is the ram-jet version of the AMRAAM which is competing against MBDA’s Meteor BVRAAM to arm the Eurofighter.

July 11, 2004 at 7:06 am in reply to: How good is the MICA? not the IR. #2061188

f4ephantom
Participant

Overall I think that the MICA is more capable than the AMRAAM.

As seb92100 said, it has TVC and can be used as a BVR and WVR weapon, a big tactical advantage. The MICA has two optional seeker heads and it weighs less than the AMRAAM.
Instead of an aircraft having to carry 4 AIM-120s for BVR and 4 AIM-9Xs for WVR, the aircraft can carry 8 MICAs which can be used effewctivly in both roles.

The only two drawbacks with the MICA is the price is more than the AMRAAM and it has a slightly reduced range (28 miles) compared to the AMRAAM (32 miles).

July 11, 2004 at 6:58 am in reply to: Phoenix vs AMRAAM #2061192

f4ephantom
Participant

Originally posted by GDL
Is the AIM-120D the gel-fuelled AMRAAM everyone has been talking about?

I’m kinda lost here. I havent heard anything about a gel-fueled AMRAAM…

June 22, 2004 at 2:52 am in reply to: Gripen & LCA/J-10 #2684753

f4ephantom
Participant

Quote by srbin:
I know Meteor and Taurus are very good weapons, I know the Russians have really nothing to match the Taurus but is the twice more expensive Gripen really worth it over the J-10 or LCA? Also are the Europeans and Swedes really willing to export the Taurus or the Meteor to anyone?

The Russians have a decent vatiety of advanced AGMs which can match the Taurus. And the Gripen only has 7 weapons pylons, I believe the J-10 has 11 weapon stations, and is capable of carrying AA-12, AA-10, AA-11, PL-10, PL-11, PL-9 and the PL-12 ram-jet powered AAM which is suppose to be in development.
So the J-10 is not totally beaten by the Gripen as far as weapon capabilities.
Author

Posts

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)