By: Geforce
- 24th December 2001 at 15:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
Who is kurt? Is that your imaginary friend?
New
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce
- 24th December 2001 at 15:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
Sorry see it now. Gotta ask new glasses for newyear
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 24th December 2001 at 16:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
:D :D :D :D
duh !!! wel ldone geforce
if you go to aircombat, kurt has been posting essays after essays on loads of diffrent thing that mean you have to spend ages reading them - to be honest i have to skim read most as i haven't got the time normally.
rabie :9
New
Posts: 74
By: keeper
- 24th December 2001 at 17:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MIG-29K
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-12-01 AT 05:24 PM (GMT)] It does'nt take a PhD to figure out that the MIG-29SMTK is itself an upgraded and souped up MIG-29K.MIG-29K + SMT features = better than K or M!!!!
Kurt plummer,with all due respect,what you say and claim about the MIG-29SMTK is nothing less than ridiculous.You make it sound as if it's a downgraded MIG-29.
If that drawing itself is new to you,then how could you have come across all those sensitive details?:DAnd the tanks are most certainly jettisonable.:DAnd you cannot judge the power of the plane from a drawing.:D
Even the Su-30K has 2 MFDS,full ground attack capability,new radar and avionics,IFR and the indian ones have rearward facing radar.
Seems to me that you are simply biased against russkie equipment.
I'm surprised no one mentioned a navalised Typhoon.It would kick ass!!!
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 24th December 2001 at 19:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The MIG-29K
Keeper, I think you just hit the nail on the head when you said "you cannot judge the power of the plane from a drawing". I agree. But is that not exactly what you and Harry, Garryb and others do when you expound on the capabilities of the navalized Mig-29 in Indian service on a carrier, which for all practical purposes, is as much a question mark as the Mig itself? If this combo is so good, you have to ask, why the Russians want to sell it? And lets not trot out the argument that the Russian economy is always the culprit. They are not stupid. They make decisions based on technical considerations as well. For all we know, they decided to ditch the whole idea because of technical reasons, not cost.
I can imagine the reaction if someone was to suggest that a navalized F-16 would be an automatic winner just because the USAF has lots of experience and success with it on land.
By: Vortex
- 24th December 2001 at 23:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
need another war to prove?
or a demonstration at the Paris/Farnbrough...Funny how the EF is heavier, bigger, carries more fuel, based mostly on a well proven design, short comings corrected from previous designs, and equal if not more sophisticated avionics than the Rafale, which all points toward one direction, being superior. The RCS, how many here have really seen the RCS figures of the Rafale, EF, and the Mig29 in question. Yet, the conclusion is that the Rafale is got to be stealthier, based on what? Show me a polar chart with the RCS. Also based on what does the flight characteristics of the EF shows that it's inferior to the Rafale in all regimes, if not to the A-D version of the F-18. GAO...ha that's very funny. GAO. Is there a French equivalent to GAO that we can read their reports? Su-27 series fighter have these awesome high AOA manuevers, but they are not sustainable and controllable at extrememly high AOAs, yet all this praise. What happens when an F-18EF does a full authority 50 deg AOA, most would just ignore it and bitch about something else. Close coupled canard biplanes (unlike triplanes) do not do well at high AoA w/o TVs. Of course until another war comes and once again as recent history have shown that the US military hardware is diverging rapidly from the rest of the world...and most knows and admit what direction that it's going but of course there are some who romaticize with the underdogs irrespectively...
New
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce
- 24th December 2001 at 23:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
I know, i have a special gift to see things like this immediatelly. I guess i'm in my slow days, my own recession.
New
By: Anonymous
- 25th December 2001 at 00:11Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: The MIG-29K
"But is that not exactly what you and Harry, Garryb and others do when you expound on the capabilities of the navalized Mig-29 in Indian service on a carrier, which for all practical purposes, is as much a question mark as the Mig itself?"
I am not basing my opinion of the -29 on a drawing. I am basing my opinion on the equipment fitted.
"If this combo is so good, you have to ask, why the Russians want to sell it?"
The Indians are a major Russian customer... the equivelent question for the US military would be why do they sell such capable equipment to the Israelis? (It could be captured and compromised...)
Also much of the avionics in exported Russian equipment is Western, where traditionally navigation systems LCD displays and HUDs are western systems... with Russian systems used for aircraft used in Russia. The Russian parts often not being cleared for export.
"centerline (unjettisonable, unsupersonic on the A) "
The equipment that was mounted in the centreline tank has been transferred into the aircraft very early on and the centreline tank has been jettisonable for quite a while now. Currently 2,500 litre tanks are being developed with launch rails for archers much like on the Tornado and these will be supersonic capable.
The aircraft used by the Indians will definintely be fitted with the four pylon wing except possibly if a new 5 pylon wing is fitted.
The only folding wings currently developed for Mig-29s have four pylon wings, so unless they are going to develop a new wing and only put 3 hardpoints on it or go with a fixed wing aircraft the three hardpoint Mig-29K is not going to happen.
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 25th December 2001 at 00:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Vortex
- 25th December 2001 at 01:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yea..right
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-12-01 AT 01:12 AM (GMT)]well read for people who truly believes that the epitome of all fighter designs is the F-14. No, i loved the F-14, but you got to admit that all engineering designs are one compromise versus another. There are some things statically and dynamically that the F-14 is inferior to the F-18EF(of course the F-14 is an amazing design from the late 60s, much like many other aircraft from that era). But, when you have guys that only look at how much load and how far it flies is just pure rediculous. How about, instantaneous/sustained roll rates, yaw rates, pitch rates, turns, acceleration, deceleration, fatique life, RCS, controllability, flight envelelope, rate of climb, spin, moment of inertia in all three axis, asymmetry load, asymmetry thrust, response rates/time lag in control inputs, high AOA...you see, most people can't answer these questions, especially the GAO that gauge everything into how much bang a buck can buy by lumping apples with oranges, yet the above parameters are what an engineer that designs it gauge a fighter aircraft by. I don't like the F-18 as much as the F-14, but there are some quite impressive things in the EF.
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 25th December 2001 at 01:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yea..right
Yes Rabie we all love the Tomkitty and we have all read it but with respect this is complicated enough.
Regards to all this Xmas!
New
By: Anonymous
- 25th December 2001 at 02:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yea..right
Yes Vortex. The F-18E/F has some impressive things. It is impressive to see how such smart people can come up with such a fowled up program from start to finish. And yes range is THE issue. I don't care one way or another about the F-14. But it can hit further. And I am NOT in favor of reducing the strike circle around the carrier. Which is exactly what will come to pass on an F-18 only carrier. I don't care about roll rates to the nth degree as you do. I do care about a program that cost an astonomical amount of money and delivered only marginally better performance than a C.
By: Vortex
- 25th December 2001 at 03:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yea..right
fowled up program to finish? And just what part of the data that people seen about the F-22 will claim it as such as superfighter. No one in public seen it's true flight performances yet we all claim it a superfighter. That is most likely the case, but isn't it amazing that the F-18 is 100% opposite when it comes to what we "perceive" it's capability as. Just exactly why can the F-14 fly much farther or have longer combat persistence, ah yes, the swing wing that instantaneously change the wing into a highly efficient high AR wing. But, are you telling me there are no compromises? If range is that important, why don't the navy go back into upgrading the A-3 or better yet the A-5. The A-5 can out accelerate the F-14 and fly further than the F-14. But, it can't do jack in AA. Sure the F-14 is still highly deadly at AA, but at what kind of compromises? And cost? The F-14 if built and redesigned today (we're talking about hypothetical F-14E) to achieve all aspect superiority above the EF will cost less? Many things are not that clear until after it happens (sometimes not even at that) and based on 10 years ago, it was deemed by some in the USN as a better choice. Tom loves to say about the Iranian Tomcats in action, but we're talking about Tomcats in action with the likes of Su-27s/Mig-29s and future projected threats. All the other data not important except range? Too much is seen into using Carriers to strike anywhere no matter how inland, that was never the intent. The idea is that a Carrier can reach and sustain combat toward a majority of the world's countries, if not, it's job is to provide secure areas that it can protect and let the USAF handle the distant bombing. As to range coverage for fleet protection, that's another stupid thing. The area coverage of a circle is proportional to the distance squared. If you have CAPs performed at too far out, the distance it needs to cover a surprise threat at different locations means a much farther distance to cover and then increased the response time. F-14s are more range efficient when the wing is extended, but when at full sweep for high speed and full burner, you're telling me it has more range? acceleration? energy climb? In terms of operational usefulness, the F-14s don't do M2+ flights, especially the D version. That said, the F-18's acceleration and low supersonic drag (yes transonically slighly slower than the C/D, but with much more fuel to allow such a burn) is very important for fleet defense. contrary to most, the USN did empahsize more of the EF performance as a fighter, where obviously they know the JSF winner will take care of the strike role. There are tons of other things and it's interesting that Tom always brings up "Operational" usefulness until the F-14 comes up. Range with wings extended, YES, but the F-35 can make it look really bad in overall performance. Acceleration? and other not important engineering gauges?
New
By: Anonymous
- 25th December 2001 at 06:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
22
Actually test pilots and others that have observed the program to date have raved about the observed performance of the F22. Its the real deal. (better be for the price).
elp
usa
New
Posts: 74
By: keeper
- 25th December 2001 at 14:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: 22
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-12-01 AT 02:35 PM (GMT)]Sauron,
Your post does'nt make any sense at all and you're not at all helping this discussion with those meaningless rants.However,at the same time,you claim that a navalised F-16 will be best(yeah right) without again,giving a proper reason.
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 25th December 2001 at 16:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:
Keeper, deliberatly misrepresenting someones words is far to obvious a ploy to work here where everyone can judge our words for themselves. As if anyone would believe that F-16 bit.
I am in far to good a mood to rant at the moment.
Vortex, the F-14 folks are going to get mad at you if you keep pointing out that the Super Bug has good qualities. They would rather not hear it. They would rather continue to believe that a new version of the Tomcat would only cost $20mil or so.
By: Vortex
- 25th December 2001 at 18:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
doesn't mean i don't love the F-14
No, the image of a tomcat with the Jolly Rogers Skull and Cross Bone in the old days on the USS Nimitz is lasting and powerful image to me. I'll remember it till the day i die. The F-14 is a superb fighter plane, but everything is a compromise and each ounce of extra expanded capability at the expense of slightly less range (by the way folks, unless the F-14's wing is fully extended all the time, it really don't have that much of a range advantage, at full sweep it's actually much less) is fine with me. I've always think that the Hornet is not that good looking (dull rather) and that i would've rather see a totally new fighter. But, they got an aircraft that have a pretty reliable track record on the high seas. The Mig might encounter some reliability problems on the high seas. The Rafale people mentioned about the experience with the SEtendard, but make you think a little bit when the Rafale is the first French made supersonic naval fighter. What does that have to do? i can only smile.
New
By: Anonymous
- 25th December 2001 at 19:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
again
This us vs. them stuff is silly. Fact is the Navy is replacing jets with new jets that have less reach. That by itself is dumb.
By: Vortex
- 25th December 2001 at 20:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: again
It's not us versus them, but looking at it purely as an engineering machine. Sure, i guess when all you want is range, then that's a scale factor of 100 versus everything else being scaled to unity. In that case, you win. But i don't think the navy see's range as that disproportionally important. I believe the bring back on the deck is more than a D model F-14. What is the bring back of the Rafale? and Mig29. Don't think many answered that. Rafale carries 2/3 the fuel internally of the F-18EF. So, if the Rafale is superior in range/load combo, the EF is ~30% inferior in aerodynamics? The EF is heavier and larger, but it also has more thrust versus the Rafale which will need to wait quite a while to get anything in the 20,000lbf class(many confused it with the thrust class of the Eurofighter). Again, any non TV canard/delta fighter can not sustain high AoAs, more than that it's very dangerous to do high AoAs due to deep stall(triplanes are ok). There are indications that the RCS of the EF is lower, yes lower than the Rafale. And then the Mig29 is even worse in almost all aspects except perhaps close in. Even that the EF is supposed to be superior in controllability versus the CD in close in. As to TWR, keep this in perspective, the CD is ~10,000kg while the EF is ~13,000kg empty. That's a difference of ~6,000lbf. The CD's engine is ~18klbf each while the EF is ~22klbf in thrust...humm..do the math.
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 25th December 2001 at 20:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: In praise of silliness
Eric your right but what's wrong about a little humour once in awhile? I notice elsewhere that you like lemon jokes (actually I think it's pretty good myself) so I know you enjoy humour as much as the next guy. Speaking of silly, look how often the anti-Superbug folks manage to inject their little SH comments into unrelated threads. Actually I enjoy them. So here's to all of us who enjoy a
little humour.
Rabie I do worry that you will run out of smiles as you are so generous with them. I hope St. Nick brought you lots.
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce - 24th December 2001 at 15:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
Who is kurt? Is that your imaginary friend?
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce - 24th December 2001 at 15:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
Sorry see it now. Gotta ask new glasses for newyear
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 24th December 2001 at 16:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
:D :D :D :D
duh !!! wel ldone geforce
if you go to aircombat, kurt has been posting essays after essays on loads of diffrent thing that mean you have to spend ages reading them - to be honest i have to skim read most as i haven't got the time normally.
rabie :9
Posts: 74
By: keeper - 24th December 2001 at 17:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MIG-29K
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-12-01 AT 05:24 PM (GMT)] It does'nt take a PhD to figure out that the MIG-29SMTK is itself an upgraded and souped up MIG-29K.MIG-29K + SMT features = better than K or M!!!!
Kurt plummer,with all due respect,what you say and claim about the MIG-29SMTK is nothing less than ridiculous.You make it sound as if it's a downgraded MIG-29.
If that drawing itself is new to you,then how could you have come across all those sensitive details?:DAnd the tanks are most certainly jettisonable.:DAnd you cannot judge the power of the plane from a drawing.:D
Even the Su-30K has 2 MFDS,full ground attack capability,new radar and avionics,IFR and the indian ones have rearward facing radar.
Seems to me that you are simply biased against russkie equipment.
I'm surprised no one mentioned a navalised Typhoon.It would kick ass!!!
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 24th December 2001 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The MIG-29K
Keeper, I think you just hit the nail on the head when you said "you cannot judge the power of the plane from a drawing". I agree. But is that not exactly what you and Harry, Garryb and others do when you expound on the capabilities of the navalized Mig-29 in Indian service on a carrier, which for all practical purposes, is as much a question mark as the Mig itself? If this combo is so good, you have to ask, why the Russians want to sell it? And lets not trot out the argument that the Russian economy is always the culprit. They are not stupid. They make decisions based on technical considerations as well. For all we know, they decided to ditch the whole idea because of technical reasons, not cost.
I can imagine the reaction if someone was to suggest that a navalized F-16 would be an automatic winner just because the USAF has lots of experience and success with it on land.
Regards
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 24th December 2001 at 23:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
need another war to prove?
or a demonstration at the Paris/Farnbrough...Funny how the EF is heavier, bigger, carries more fuel, based mostly on a well proven design, short comings corrected from previous designs, and equal if not more sophisticated avionics than the Rafale, which all points toward one direction, being superior. The RCS, how many here have really seen the RCS figures of the Rafale, EF, and the Mig29 in question. Yet, the conclusion is that the Rafale is got to be stealthier, based on what? Show me a polar chart with the RCS. Also based on what does the flight characteristics of the EF shows that it's inferior to the Rafale in all regimes, if not to the A-D version of the F-18. GAO...ha that's very funny. GAO. Is there a French equivalent to GAO that we can read their reports? Su-27 series fighter have these awesome high AOA manuevers, but they are not sustainable and controllable at extrememly high AOAs, yet all this praise. What happens when an F-18EF does a full authority 50 deg AOA, most would just ignore it and bitch about something else. Close coupled canard biplanes (unlike triplanes) do not do well at high AoA w/o TVs. Of course until another war comes and once again as recent history have shown that the US military hardware is diverging rapidly from the rest of the world...and most knows and admit what direction that it's going but of course there are some who romaticize with the underdogs irrespectively...
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce - 24th December 2001 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
I know, i have a special gift to see things like this immediatelly. I guess i'm in my slow days, my own recession.
By: Anonymous - 25th December 2001 at 00:11 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: The MIG-29K
"But is that not exactly what you and Harry, Garryb and others do when you expound on the capabilities of the navalized Mig-29 in Indian service on a carrier, which for all practical purposes, is as much a question mark as the Mig itself?"
I am not basing my opinion of the -29 on a drawing. I am basing my opinion on the equipment fitted.
"If this combo is so good, you have to ask, why the Russians want to sell it?"
The Indians are a major Russian customer... the equivelent question for the US military would be why do they sell such capable equipment to the Israelis? (It could be captured and compromised...)
Also much of the avionics in exported Russian equipment is Western, where traditionally navigation systems LCD displays and HUDs are western systems... with Russian systems used for aircraft used in Russia. The Russian parts often not being cleared for export.
"centerline (unjettisonable, unsupersonic on the A) "
The equipment that was mounted in the centreline tank has been transferred into the aircraft very early on and the centreline tank has been jettisonable for quite a while now. Currently 2,500 litre tanks are being developed with launch rails for archers much like on the Tornado and these will be supersonic capable.
The aircraft used by the Indians will definintely be fitted with the four pylon wing except possibly if a new 5 pylon wing is fitted.
The only folding wings currently developed for Mig-29s have four pylon wings, so unless they are going to develop a new wing and only put 3 hardpoints on it or go with a fixed wing aircraft the three hardpoint Mig-29K is not going to happen.
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 25th December 2001 at 00:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
for a real good article on the f/a-18 ef and f-14 check out a great piece by tom on aircombat at http://pub36.ezboard.com/fskyzersaircombatforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID…
a well recomended read
rabie :9
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 25th December 2001 at 01:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yea..right
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-12-01 AT 01:12 AM (GMT)]well read for people who truly believes that the epitome of all fighter designs is the F-14. No, i loved the F-14, but you got to admit that all engineering designs are one compromise versus another. There are some things statically and dynamically that the F-14 is inferior to the F-18EF(of course the F-14 is an amazing design from the late 60s, much like many other aircraft from that era). But, when you have guys that only look at how much load and how far it flies is just pure rediculous. How about, instantaneous/sustained roll rates, yaw rates, pitch rates, turns, acceleration, deceleration, fatique life, RCS, controllability, flight envelelope, rate of climb, spin, moment of inertia in all three axis, asymmetry load, asymmetry thrust, response rates/time lag in control inputs, high AOA...you see, most people can't answer these questions, especially the GAO that gauge everything into how much bang a buck can buy by lumping apples with oranges, yet the above parameters are what an engineer that designs it gauge a fighter aircraft by. I don't like the F-18 as much as the F-14, but there are some quite impressive things in the EF.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 25th December 2001 at 01:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yea..right
Yes Rabie we all love the Tomkitty and we have all read it but with respect this is complicated enough.
Regards to all this Xmas!
By: Anonymous - 25th December 2001 at 02:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yea..right
Yes Vortex. The F-18E/F has some impressive things. It is impressive to see how such smart people can come up with such a fowled up program from start to finish. And yes range is THE issue. I don't care one way or another about the F-14. But it can hit further. And I am NOT in favor of reducing the strike circle around the carrier. Which is exactly what will come to pass on an F-18 only carrier. I don't care about roll rates to the nth degree as you do. I do care about a program that cost an astonomical amount of money and delivered only marginally better performance than a C.
elp
usa
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 25th December 2001 at 03:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yea..right
fowled up program to finish? And just what part of the data that people seen about the F-22 will claim it as such as superfighter. No one in public seen it's true flight performances yet we all claim it a superfighter. That is most likely the case, but isn't it amazing that the F-18 is 100% opposite when it comes to what we "perceive" it's capability as. Just exactly why can the F-14 fly much farther or have longer combat persistence, ah yes, the swing wing that instantaneously change the wing into a highly efficient high AR wing. But, are you telling me there are no compromises? If range is that important, why don't the navy go back into upgrading the A-3 or better yet the A-5. The A-5 can out accelerate the F-14 and fly further than the F-14. But, it can't do jack in AA. Sure the F-14 is still highly deadly at AA, but at what kind of compromises? And cost? The F-14 if built and redesigned today (we're talking about hypothetical F-14E) to achieve all aspect superiority above the EF will cost less? Many things are not that clear until after it happens (sometimes not even at that) and based on 10 years ago, it was deemed by some in the USN as a better choice. Tom loves to say about the Iranian Tomcats in action, but we're talking about Tomcats in action with the likes of Su-27s/Mig-29s and future projected threats. All the other data not important except range? Too much is seen into using Carriers to strike anywhere no matter how inland, that was never the intent. The idea is that a Carrier can reach and sustain combat toward a majority of the world's countries, if not, it's job is to provide secure areas that it can protect and let the USAF handle the distant bombing. As to range coverage for fleet protection, that's another stupid thing. The area coverage of a circle is proportional to the distance squared. If you have CAPs performed at too far out, the distance it needs to cover a surprise threat at different locations means a much farther distance to cover and then increased the response time. F-14s are more range efficient when the wing is extended, but when at full sweep for high speed and full burner, you're telling me it has more range? acceleration? energy climb? In terms of operational usefulness, the F-14s don't do M2+ flights, especially the D version. That said, the F-18's acceleration and low supersonic drag (yes transonically slighly slower than the C/D, but with much more fuel to allow such a burn) is very important for fleet defense. contrary to most, the USN did empahsize more of the EF performance as a fighter, where obviously they know the JSF winner will take care of the strike role. There are tons of other things and it's interesting that Tom always brings up "Operational" usefulness until the F-14 comes up. Range with wings extended, YES, but the F-35 can make it look really bad in overall performance. Acceleration? and other not important engineering gauges?
By: Anonymous - 25th December 2001 at 06:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
22
Actually test pilots and others that have observed the program to date have raved about the observed performance of the F22. Its the real deal. (better be for the price).
elp
usa
Posts: 74
By: keeper - 25th December 2001 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: 22
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-12-01 AT 02:35 PM (GMT)]Sauron,
Your post does'nt make any sense at all and you're not at all helping this discussion with those meaningless rants.However,at the same time,you claim that a navalised F-16 will be best(yeah right) without again,giving a proper reason.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 25th December 2001 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:
Keeper, deliberatly misrepresenting someones words is far to obvious a ploy to work here where everyone can judge our words for themselves. As if anyone would believe that F-16 bit.
I am in far to good a mood to rant at the moment.
Vortex, the F-14 folks are going to get mad at you if you keep pointing out that the Super Bug has good qualities. They would rather not hear it. They would rather continue to believe that a new version of the Tomcat would only cost $20mil or so.
Regards
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 25th December 2001 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
doesn't mean i don't love the F-14
No, the image of a tomcat with the Jolly Rogers Skull and Cross Bone in the old days on the USS Nimitz is lasting and powerful image to me. I'll remember it till the day i die. The F-14 is a superb fighter plane, but everything is a compromise and each ounce of extra expanded capability at the expense of slightly less range (by the way folks, unless the F-14's wing is fully extended all the time, it really don't have that much of a range advantage, at full sweep it's actually much less) is fine with me. I've always think that the Hornet is not that good looking (dull rather) and that i would've rather see a totally new fighter. But, they got an aircraft that have a pretty reliable track record on the high seas. The Mig might encounter some reliability problems on the high seas. The Rafale people mentioned about the experience with the SEtendard, but make you think a little bit when the Rafale is the first French made supersonic naval fighter. What does that have to do? i can only smile.
By: Anonymous - 25th December 2001 at 19:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
again
This us vs. them stuff is silly. Fact is the Navy is replacing jets with new jets that have less reach. That by itself is dumb.
elp
usa
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 25th December 2001 at 20:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: again
It's not us versus them, but looking at it purely as an engineering machine. Sure, i guess when all you want is range, then that's a scale factor of 100 versus everything else being scaled to unity. In that case, you win. But i don't think the navy see's range as that disproportionally important. I believe the bring back on the deck is more than a D model F-14. What is the bring back of the Rafale? and Mig29. Don't think many answered that. Rafale carries 2/3 the fuel internally of the F-18EF. So, if the Rafale is superior in range/load combo, the EF is ~30% inferior in aerodynamics? The EF is heavier and larger, but it also has more thrust versus the Rafale which will need to wait quite a while to get anything in the 20,000lbf class(many confused it with the thrust class of the Eurofighter). Again, any non TV canard/delta fighter can not sustain high AoAs, more than that it's very dangerous to do high AoAs due to deep stall(triplanes are ok). There are indications that the RCS of the EF is lower, yes lower than the Rafale. And then the Mig29 is even worse in almost all aspects except perhaps close in. Even that the EF is supposed to be superior in controllability versus the CD in close in. As to TWR, keep this in perspective, the CD is ~10,000kg while the EF is ~13,000kg empty. That's a difference of ~6,000lbf. The CD's engine is ~18klbf each while the EF is ~22klbf in thrust...humm..do the math.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 25th December 2001 at 20:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: In praise of silliness
Eric your right but what's wrong about a little humour once in awhile? I notice elsewhere that you like lemon jokes (actually I think it's pretty good myself) so I know you enjoy humour as much as the next guy. Speaking of silly, look how often the anti-Superbug folks manage to inject their little SH comments into unrelated threads. Actually I enjoy them. So here's to all of us who enjoy a
little humour.
Rabie I do worry that you will run out of smiles as you are so generous with them. I hope St. Nick brought you lots.
Regards all.