dark light

emile

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 525 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-20 Tigershark vs Mirage 2000 #2318519
    emile
    Participant

    Due to considerably smaller wing load, the Mirage 2000 performs 22degrees per second at 4500meter at Mach=0.7
    On the other hand, By destabilizing the aircraft in pitch, the F-20’s LERXes improved the instantaneous turn rate by 7 percent, to 20 degrees per second. without saying altitude, however, according to our Chinese collection from sporadic magazines since early 80’s, the altitude suppose to be 4500 either with a little bit lower data 19 degrees per second.

    Either Mirage 2000 or F-20 achieved 11.5 degrees per second at same altitude, but the former at M=0.7, the latter at M=0.8, we can assume they are similar for STR.

    Ergo, Franc is right the Mirage 2000 win at turn rate.

    Due to the characteristics of delta wing, the Mirage 2000 gains 265 degree per second of roll rate at 4500m and M=0.8, according to the book lotnicze series.
    Regretably, the roll rate data of F-20 couldn’t be gathered by my capability, if anyone got it please share.

    According to our Chinese data, which due to some suggestion released test flight of Mirage 2000 in China, the initial climb rate = 265m per second was reached by Mirage 2000, whereas F-20 was capable to reach 274 meters per second, which announced by Northrop, our Chinese data is 273 till 1989, therefor, they are similar.

    Acceleration were unable to be found by google searching, all by Chinese database:
    F-20 needs 85 seconds to reach Mach 1.6 from Mach 0.9 within 9144 meter.
    On the other hand,
    Acceleration from M 0.9 at the tropopause.

    Mirage 2000 = 2 mn to M 1.85.

    F-16 = 2 mn to M 1.75.

    Mirage 2000 = 3 mn to M 2.17.

    F-16 = 3 mn to M 1.86.

    So the Mirage 2000 maybe better rely on its high swept angle of delta wing.

    I am not going to do comparison between Mirage 2000 and F-20, because of entire distinction being there. I think the most comparable one shall be F-20 and JAS-39.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions VI #2338671
    emile
    Participant

    Still unable to see 1500L external fuel tanks carried by Typhoon or they has never been made up to now?

    in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2339591
    emile
    Participant

    Along with a twin engined clue, Sergelboss might be right.

    in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2341552
    emile
    Participant

    Not too expensive if related to its specifications.
    Developing a program of a/c are mostly due to a nation’s strategy, axiomatically, French considered their air-power for Navy.
    Yes, got Mirage4000 in service would be shiny for the only Euro-country which have a fighter competable to F-15, but abandon it we called wisdom.

    in reply to: Rafale vs F-16b52+ and J-10 #2343444
    emile
    Participant

    with a F-16 and J-10, there seems to be a very big advantage for Rafale at BV Ranges.

    Whose advantage?:eek:

    in reply to: Rafale vs F-16b52+ and J-10 #2343447
    emile
    Participant

    What is the basis for assuming the Chinese would rather have imported Mirage 2000s rather than Flankers?
    None.
    And helicopters? They seem to like the Mi-26, since there is nothing French that is comparable.
    Apparently Mi-8 is doing its job too, no copy in sight.

    We really want F-16 for sure, with possibly more abstruction to Lavi, purchase Mirage2000 would be not impossible.
    Remember that 1989 massacure at Tianmen Square changed everything important, especially military direction.

    in reply to: Question concerning Bristol Blenheim #1073416
    emile
    Participant

    Thanks to MarK
    Now I know why the turret is rare to be seen on Blenheim even some Mk.Ⅳversion.

    Also thanks to RRW.
    Pedantic was the word I have been seeking for a months, occasionally found here by your post. Is won’t be lost again.

    in reply to: Rafale vs F-16b52+ and J-10 #2346108
    emile
    Participant

    MMRCA is the project for replacing MIG-21 and MIG-27before 2017 and 2020, not for replacing Mirage 2000.

    IAF shall replace its own Mirage 2000 and MIG-29 by the domestic AMCA after 2025, and I think Typhoon won’t have chance for such kind of replacement at that time……

    The SEPECAT Jaguar will substitute by who?
    Considering M-MRCA so-called, will be supposed to stand the position at attacker instead of interceptor such as MiG-21.
    Any disarmament ought to be on MiG-27 which are not so many being service and the numbers are actually on JAGUAR.

    in reply to: Rafale vs F-16b52+ and J-10 #2347168
    emile
    Participant

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm
    The numbers involved in a real fight was still limited and not up to the political show of force about that. The main problem of the IAF and the ground-forces was the terrain and to deal with the Stinger-threat for all supporting aircraft/helicopters. In some years from now the Rafale will be a better A2G tool for such a task.

    With my comprehension, in your view, the Rafale will replace Jaguar 1to1, ergo, there is a chance still remain to the Typhoon for replacing their Mirage2000 and MiG-27?

    in reply to: Rafale vs F-16b52+ and J-10 #2348803
    emile
    Participant

    LOL!! China have rcs model of Rafale several years now and have close relation with France. France likely can provide data on Rafale like they did Mirage. Rafale is old design from 80s, J-10 is newer design and J-10B have AESA radar and entering service. How long will it be before India get their own Rafale? they are behind already by ten years. J-20 already is enough to defeat Rafale and Indian pakfa

    😀
    Here is an analysis for some Chinese guys like you.
    Rafale for India is not to defeat J-20, also it is being a dream to say that PAKFA will be beaten by J-20.
    The J-20 pushed too many Chinese to being drunk and all of them are fool enough.

    in reply to: P-39's Firepower, a fighter or an attacker? #1052764
    emile
    Participant

    according to the video Introduction of P-39 from youtube, the gun mounted on wing side was 20mm or I heard wrong? However the image presented in video truly is close to .5 caliber rather than 20mm cannon.

    in reply to: J-20 Thread 7 #2302712
    emile
    Participant

    finally the J-20’s nickname was spelled rightly…..
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=201989&d=1324372339

    in reply to: Gripen for Switzerland #2309935
    emile
    Participant

    +1 🙂

    Regarding take off and landing distance, the specifications say:
    Gripen: 800m dry, 500m with AB take-off / 500m landing
    Rafale: 820m dry, 590m with AB take-off / 490m landing
    Typhoon: 700m dry, 500m with AB take-off / 700m landing

    –> Advantage Gripen

    But as the climb rates allegedly are >200m/s for Gripen and EF, and >250m/s for the Rafale, I’m not sure how reliable the data actually is…

    Perhaps an unofficial data for climb rate of Gripen

    in reply to: Flanker airshow vids carrying weapons? #2310463
    emile
    Participant

    Greeting:
    Hi, mates! It is not the advantage concerning canards or TVC that Su-27/37 taken at most, but compare to F-22, it is differential deflection, however, the F-22 not like some Raptor fans in China considered, it is never/ever fitted with differential TVC, not only F-22 but also YF-22, even within paper plan.

    in reply to: General UCAV/UAV discussion – A New Hope #2310521
    emile
    Participant

    Iran Captured a U.S. Stealth Drone Intact

    For the second time this year, the Iranian government is claiming it forced down a stealthy U.S. Air Force spy drone. Only this time, Iran says it bagged the RQ-170 “with little damage” by jamming its control signal — a potentially worrying development for American forces heavily reliant on remote-controlled aircraft.

    There are good reasons to question Iran’s story — or at least parts of it. For starters, the earlier claim of a drone shoot-down proved false. Why would this announcement be any more credible? Also, for most U.S. unmanned aircraft, merely jamming the control signal won’t bring them down. Some don’t have control signals at all.

    The wedge-shaped RQ-170, built in small numbers by Lockheed Martin, was a secret until reporters photographed it at Kandahar Air Field in southern Afghanistan in 2007, as seen above. The Air Force copped to its existence two years later. The RQ-170, nicknamed “Beast of Kandahar” by aviation journalist Bill Sweetman, has since been spotted in South Korea and also played a role in the raid to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in May.

    Analysts says the RQ-170 could scout out Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear facilities. With the U.S. and Israel threatening to attack Tehran’s nuke sites to prevent the regime from gaining nuclear weapons, reports of RQ-170s flying over Iran should not shock anyone.

    Still, the shoot-down claim, published today by the official Islamic Republic News Agency and echoed by Iran’s Press TV, should be taken with a giant grain of salt.

    Iran frequently announces it has shot down U.S. surveillance drones, but has not, to our knowledge, produced any evidence of the kills. Even if Tehran did bag itself an American war ‘bot, it might not be an RQ-170. The editors at Press TV undermined their credibility by running the story with a photo of an entirely different drone than the Beast of Kandahar.

    Equally dubious is Iran’s insistence that the RQ-170, if that’s what it is, was forced down largely intact by an Iranian army “electronic-warfare unit.” The implication is that the Iranians somehow jammed the command signal beamed to the drone by remote operators.

    That’s a pretty big deal, if true. The Predator and Reaper, America’s most numerous attack and surveillance drones, are remotely-controlled via radio link by a pilot on the ground. If the link is broken, they’re designed to enter a holding pattern or even return home. But these failsafes aren’t perfect, as the Air Force discovered in 2009 when a Reaper drone went haywire and had to be shot down by an F-15. The Air Force and Navy have admitted that the control link represents a critical weakness and have worked hard to make drones more autonomous.

    Serious, widespread autonomy is for the next generation of drones. Most of today’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can probably be jammed, but before now no one has succeeded in actually doing it — again, if Iran’s claims are true.

    But even if Iran did force down an American drone, it’s unlikely it was an RQ-170. The Beast of Kandahar probably navigates autonomously, like Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk does — in contrast to the less sophisticated, remote-controlled Predators and Reapers. NATO acknowledged losing a UAV in western Afghanistan last week. “The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status,” NATO explained in a press release.

    That the operators “lost control” indicates the drone in question was not an RQ-170. And NATO losing a robot is not the same as Iran possessing it intact.

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 525 total)