Well, we should take the cost per hour and compare them between broncos and a-10s, such info would be intresting

Still, if we compare just carriage loads, the bronco seems to be a plane with 1 ton of ordenance capacity, while the a-10 should be arround 3 tons (maybe?), so to deliver 3 tons you must need 3 broncos, and 3 pilots…but then there is the posibility that not all the missions need 3 tons of ordenance..

The gau8 is an useless weapon, even for tank hunting, removing it would be practical, but wonder if the related balance/structural issues would be more complicated than just to design a new airframe…but althought as “tank killer” the gau8 is doubted efficient, as anti-“infantry” and against light vehicles would be decent…maybe to change the kind of ammo for a more conventional/cheaper one?

Maybe the Usaf/army want a lighter A-10 ,a loitering attack plane, not a fast dive bomber -su25-, so about performance requirements are almost the same -since the bronco seems a loitering gunship-, weights are different, again, the missions maybe dont require 3 tons of weapons, but lighter airplanes with cheaper maintenance, and better readiness can control/patrol more area than 1 heavy attack A-10

Really is not about broncos vs A-10, but broncos vs UAVs…i think UAVs still cant do “patroll, detect and kill” missions, since the delay of the communication is still too big (even with satellites and modern repetition stations, etc), and i dont think such issue will change…ever (since is not a “prossesing problem”)

Schorsch, please check the graphic im posting, im not in the mood to teach you how must be read the diagram, was enough with Sens…

Anyway there are 2 settings in that diagram, one with full power of the engine, and other with just dry power for each model (ML and UB), the f-16 one is the max power envelopment

If i recall well the saphir23 ( i think that was the name, seriously im not that fan of the 23..or any plane) had enough capacity for low level detection, was not great, but good enough, it had better discrimination capacity than the f-15a radar, and enough aperture for look down capacity

Anyway, this is my last post

“Transonic Close Combat” was never ever a real practical strategy, that term just popped up as an “alernative” -not even a real one btw- when the f-16’s were defeated by mig-29’s in germany, the drag rise in transonic regime is too high, and keeping overcoming it with full high bypass AB is simply stupid, late edited, i know…but still my last post 🙂

Man you cant ever read well that grapghic….”for the benefit of the others”..the inner zone represents sustained 9 gs until M0.9

At 30000 fts it say 3gs,

of course Sens think the f-16a can pull 1g at 0 km/h at 60000 fts, of course “for the benefit of the others” 🙂

It is and none do blame the Syrians for the shortcoming of their equipment. Just the less imaginative way to operate their fighters under such conditions, when their ground-forces showed a much higher flexibility already. 😉
The Su-22M3 attack planes were seen as the highest threat to the IDF ground forces.

Well, anyway that one IS the picture of the famous comparation between F4E and the F-16A

So it easily do M1.5 on medium altitudes and escape an F-16.

Escape and return, i think you dont understand very well that issue…

Teen fighters (including the F-15) had problems against fast fighters (like the f-104/f-106, and mig23)

To win the 23 must start at 15000 mts, dive over the F-16/15s , launch missiles, climb again, an old aerial combat tactic since the WW1, speed and height determine where you start the combat , which most of the time determine who wins

The first thing that comes in aerial combat is the interception, aerial combat can or not turn in close combat, but aerial combat cant start without the interception

That is the reason of the whole F-22/ATF program, the teen fighters lost that advntage in the 70’s 80’s

Other than the f-16 was not that spectacular, at 5000 m it just was able to reach 4-5 gs sustained with sidewinders, while the 23 was able to reach 4.5 gs with their big missiles, at 1000 m the f-16 was the killer, for sure

Interesting, wonder if that is the REAL pakfa…..

Anyway that picture has a shape, is more/less like this

Edit: Actually i think it may be a UAV

Edit2: Haha..okay i took a bit closer look of the video, it does not seem as an UAV…you can see the enegine arragment and the wings are not i have posted below, but are in the f-23 style, only with sharped wingtips…a weird draw, again lets see if it is the pakfa

From where comes that “41 minutes on SC” figure, i know there is a figure of 40 minutes of loiter , which does not mean SC,i think a magazine mixed up the things..and now we have that funny 40 min of SC…