Why fighter pilots wear a Typhoon Grin.
-MC- @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:14 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Good save on this pointless flag waving thread.
Considering how advanced the F22's are suposed to be I'd bet the US has air dominance sewed up for the decade and maybe more. As long as the US can afford more than a handfull. Even now they are scaling back some of the options.
To my recall, there has not been a F15 shot down yetand by all accounts, the F15's are easy food for the F22's. Russia is not making killer jets anymore and china is a decade away, even with the F16's that Isreal sold them.
I'd say the only thing that's going to kill the F22's are congress.
Any good details on the British tanks in iraq? I was reading that the 120mm rifled guns had some awful accuracy problems.
Considering how advanced the F22's are suposed to be I'd bet the US has air dominance sewed up for the decade and maybe more. As long as the US can afford more than a handfull. Even now they are scaling back some of the options.
To my recall, there has not been a F15 shot down yetand by all accounts, the F15's are easy food for the F22's. Russia is not making killer jets anymore and china is a decade away, even with the F16's that Isreal sold them.
I'd say the only thing that's going to kill the F22's are congress.
Any good details on the British tanks in iraq? I was reading that the 120mm rifled guns had some awful accuracy problems.
Israel sold China F-16s? Your correct, no F-15 has been lost in A-A. Russia is still very much making killer jets, just not on pace with the United States. I believe the last amount of F-22As approved for production was set at 183.
dgthe3 @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:33 pm
Some Eagles have been lost due to ground fire though.
And as far as the Lawn Darts go, they are not great air to air fighters though they are certainly capable of that. Though quick and manueverable, i can think of at least half a dozen aircraft that i would rather be in in an air to air fight. Im not sure if they have been sold to China, i doubt it but it is not out of the question. They get parts from the French, Germans, and Israelis. But i thought the majority of their equipment was Russian of mid to late cold war vintage?
Eurofighter
F-22
Gripen
F-18
F-15
Su 35
MiG 31
and so on
ridenrain @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:34 pm
It was more bait for GB than a point. He posts these, then does not support them. Something he learned from the Falklands, I guess.
I happened on a book that mentioned that the barrels of the rifled guns were heat treated horizontal instead of vertical, and that left un-resolved stressed in the barrels that made accuracy unpredictable.
Most of the 120mm smooth bores are German and they heat treat vertical and their guns are very accurate.
A tank that can't make fast first shot kills at 2km, on the move had better be looking for different work these days. If you can't accurately predict where those shots are going, you're not hitting and just drawing attention to you're self.
-MC- @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:48 pm
dgthe3 dgthe3:
Some Eagles have been lost due to ground fire though.
And as far as the Lawn Darts go, they are not great air to air fighters though they are certainly capable of that. Though quick and manueverable, i can think of at least half a dozen aircraft that i would rather be in in an air to air fight. Im not sure if they have been sold to China, i doubt it but it is not out of the question. They get parts from the French, Germans, and Israelis. But i thought the majority of their equipment was Russian of mid to late cold war vintage?
Eurofighter
F-22
Gripen
F-18
F-15
Su 35
MiG 31
and so on
And as far as the Lawn Darts go, they are not great air to air fighters though they are certainly capable of that. Though quick and manueverable, i can think of at least half a dozen aircraft that i would rather be in in an air to air fight. Im not sure if they have been sold to China, i doubt it but it is not out of the question. They get parts from the French, Germans, and Israelis. But i thought the majority of their equipment was Russian of mid to late cold war vintage?
Eurofighter
F-22
Gripen
F-18
F-15
Su 35
MiG 31
and so on
I believe that most of the Chinese aircraft are of Russian design. They even make their own Sukoi aircraft now. Lawn Darts refers to F-16 correct? That list of seven aircraft, is that your list of preferred aircraft to fly in A-A? Yeah I can't remember the exact amount of F-15s that were lost to ground fire.
dgthe3 @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:58 pm
Yeah, the Lawn Dart was given to the F-16 by F-15 pilots due to the problems that were encountered early on in development of the little fighter. It was the first true fly by wire aircraft with the computer interpreting the pilots inputs and converting them into commands. Well, every now and then this system would fail. At that point the little dart-like jet would nose dive -a giant lawn dart! The problem has long since been corrected though
And those 7 are just the first one that i thought of that i feel are better air to air fighters. Any you think I left out? Or shuldn't have?
I kinda added some stuff to my orignial post before i clicked submit. Looking back, I guess it seems as though i am saying that those are what have been sold to the Chinese. Oops 
-MC- @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:08 pm
dgthe3 dgthe3:
Yeah, the Lawn Dart was given to the F-16 by F-15 pilots due to the problems that were encountered early on in development of the little fighter. It was the first true fly by wire aircraft with the computer interpreting the pilots inputs and converting them into commands. Well, every now and then this system would fail. At that point the little dart-like jet would nose dive -a giant lawn dart! The problem has long since been corrected though
And those 7 are just the first one that i thought of that i feel are better air to air fighters. Any you think I left out? Or shuldn't have?
I kinda added some stuff to my orignial post before i clicked submit. Looking back, I guess it seems as though i am saying that those are what have been sold to the Chinese. Oops
And those 7 are just the first one that i thought of that i feel are better air to air fighters. Any you think I left out? Or shuldn't have?
I kinda added some stuff to my orignial post before i clicked submit. Looking back, I guess it seems as though i am saying that those are what have been sold to the Chinese. Oops
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was the first FBW aircraft. Lawn Darts, I like it. I was never a huge fan of the 16, although it is a neat little aircraft. In the A-A role it is quite capable. A number of TOP GUN pilots who flew them in the aggressor role in the early 90's can attest to that. It is suppose to be able to turn tighter than the hornet, or at least that's what a falcon pilot said on a program I watched on the military channel. I'm a little skeptical about that only because I've heard the hornet turns tighter than the 16. I have to check but I think NSAWC is using F-16s again.
ridenrain @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:09 pm
$1:
Transactions between the U.S. and Israel are not necessarily worrisome by themselves; after all, as Israel has proved, there are a host of countries willing to sell the weapons it needs. Currently, Germany is Israel's source for submarines, and if Israel really needed fighters, Russia is always looking to make a buck and always seems to have a surfeit of aircraft and other excess defense articles.
The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.
Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.
The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.
Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm
-MC- @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:17 pm
Looks like the US needs to put a leash on Israel. That is unless the US is in on it and the technology being sold is faulty...
dgthe3 @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:35 pm
I do believe it was the F-16 because the lessons learned were used in the F-117 (should be F-17 but who's counting?) that was developed just after the F-16 durring the late 1970's. The F-18 was developed at about the same time as the nighthawk, maybe slightly later but for sure not before the F-16.
And yes the F-16 can fly tight little circles which is great for a dogfight, but pilots like to avoid those if possible. Thats why the air to air missile was invented after all, and low observability too.
And Israel, if they want to sell a few F-16 clones to China so what? Nobody in the world will be able to do more than scratch the USAF for a long time to come. And its probalby better that the Chinese get an American/Israeli design -you know whats its limmitations are alot quicker than if it is enemy equipment from the start. Reminds me of the Israeli War of Independance just after WWII where 3 sides were all flying Spitfires . . . Brits, Egyptians, and Israelis
-MC- @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:56 pm
dgthe3 dgthe3:
I do believe it was the F-16 because the lessons learned were used in the F-117 (should be F-17 but who's counting?) that was developed just after the F-16 durring the late 1970's. The F-18 was developed at about the same time as the nighthawk, maybe slightly later but for sure not before the F-16.
And yes the F-16 can fly tight little circles which is great for a dogfight, but pilots like to avoid those if possible. Thats why the air to air missile was invented after all, and low observability too.
And Israel, if they want to sell a few F-16 clones to China so what? Nobody in the world will be able to do more than scratch the USAF for a long time to come. And its probalby better that the Chinese get an American/Israeli design -you know whats its limmitations are alot quicker than if it is enemy equipment from the start. Reminds me of the Israeli War of Independance just after WWII where 3 sides were all flying Spitfires . . . Brits, Egyptians, and Israelis
And yes the F-16 can fly tight little circles which is great for a dogfight, but pilots like to avoid those if possible. Thats why the air to air missile was invented after all, and low observability too.
And Israel, if they want to sell a few F-16 clones to China so what? Nobody in the world will be able to do more than scratch the USAF for a long time to come. And its probalby better that the Chinese get an American/Israeli design -you know whats its limmitations are alot quicker than if it is enemy equipment from the start. Reminds me of the Israeli War of Independance just after WWII where 3 sides were all flying Spitfires . . . Brits, Egyptians, and Israelis
I'm going to look it up when I have the time but I think the first operational FBW fighter was the F/A-18A. I know the first FBW aircraft was the F-8, but it was only a testbed aircraft. The F-117 is not suppose to be the F-17. The YF-17 was the aircraft designed by Northrop in the LFW program that loss to the YF-16. Later Mcdonnell Douglas picked it up and turned it into the F/A-18. The F-117A was only given the designation of fighter to throw off the Soviets into thinking they were building a new fighter. The F-117A is an attack aircraft and after some time, the designation F-117A became official.
Tight little circles are very important. The fighter that turns the tightest is the first one to get a shot off. Whether you know it or not, most encounters today require a visual id. Rules of engagment permit US fighters to only fire in self-defense. In a full out war say with China, then yes missiles will be fired from BVR, but in peace time that's not the case. Of course, just because you can fire off missiles in a time of war, doesn't mean you aren't going to end up in a dogfight. In the first Gulf war, F-15s were making visual ids most of the time and dogfights did happen, all but very quick ones but nonetheless, you need a fighter that can turn tight. Its like not having a gun, and we all know about that hard lesson.
Selling equipment to a potential enemy is never a good thing, I don't care if it's decades old.
Streaker @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:03 am
The Typhoon looks like a great plane, but......
...0-12000 feet in four seconds? I am extremely sceptical about this.
The plane would have to be able to do roughly Mach 2.5 or more on the deck before initiating such a climb, and go straight up afterwards without losing any speed (or go even faster if it were not going straight up).
I don't know of any jet-powered aircraft that can go such a speed at such a low altitude, never mind one with a relatively large delta wing like the Eurofighter.
Canadian_Mind @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:19 am
eurofighter is light, with a fairly large powerhouse. wing size doesn't much matter when your going strait up. big wings might even help, depending on the AoA.
0-12000 feet is believable, but there must be something about the plane that they are not telling us. prolley has secondary after burners that pours, instead of sprays fuel into the exaust that it would use. hell of a waste of fuel, and would severly stress the aircraft. but that'll give it a hell of a boost.
dgthe3 @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:23 am
$1:
The cockpit and its bubble canopy give the pilot unobstructed forward and upward vision, and greatly improved vision over the side and to the rear. The seat-back angle was expanded from the usual 13 degrees to 30 degrees, increasing pilot comfort and gravity force tolerance. The pilot has excellent flight control of the F-16 through its "fly-by-wire" system. Electrical wires relay commands, replacing the usual cables and linkage controls. For easy and accurate control of the aircraft during high G-force combat maneuvers, a side stick controller is used instead of the conventional center-mounted stick. Hand pressure on the side stick controller sends electrical signals to actuators of flight control surfaces such as ailerons and rudder
that was from FBW F-16
I have an encyclopaedia at home with the development/deployment history of all modern aircraft, but alas i have to rely on how stuff works
As for the name of the F-117, another story that i have heard is that it was purely a mistake, that it should have been the F-17 or F-19 (can't remember). A story i read from a F-117 test pilot goes something like this: When it was in development, if there is a plane does not get an official designation it becomes the -117 untill they get something official. In this case, somebody asked befor ethere was a real number for it so it got stuck with the name. As for why the designated it a fighter . . . i have no idea since it is only an attack aircraft making it an A-?? or at least an F/A
But i must sleep now
-MC- @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:53 am
dgthe3 dgthe3:
$1:
The cockpit and its bubble canopy give the pilot unobstructed forward and upward vision, and greatly improved vision over the side and to the rear. The seat-back angle was expanded from the usual 13 degrees to 30 degrees, increasing pilot comfort and gravity force tolerance. The pilot has excellent flight control of the F-16 through its "fly-by-wire" system. Electrical wires relay commands, replacing the usual cables and linkage controls. For easy and accurate control of the aircraft during high G-force combat maneuvers, a side stick controller is used instead of the conventional center-mounted stick. Hand pressure on the side stick controller sends electrical signals to actuators of flight control surfaces such as ailerons and rudder
that was from FBW F-16
I have an encyclopaedia at home with the development/deployment history of all modern aircraft, but alas i have to rely on how stuff works
As for the name of the F-117, another story that i have heard is that it was purely a mistake, that it should have been the F-17 or F-19 (can't remember). A story i read from a F-117 test pilot goes something like this: When it was in development, if there is a plane does not get an official designation it becomes the -117 untill they get something official. In this case, somebody asked befor ethere was a real number for it so it got stuck with the name. As for why the designated it a fighter . . . i have no idea since it is only an attack aircraft making it an A-?? or at least an F/A
But i must sleep now
Where does it say that the F-16 was the first operational fighter with FBW? As for the 117, I know that it was given the -117 in the beginning. Maybe like you said, it is what was given to aircraft. I know that after some time, nobody bothered to change it and it eventually became official. It was designated fighter purely to trick the Soviets. It is in no way a fighter aircraft. I think the F-19 was what people thought the F-117 was.
-MC- @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:06 pm
Streaker Streaker:
The Typhoon looks like a great plane, but......
...0-12000 feet in four seconds? I am extremely sceptical about this.
The plane would have to be able to do roughly Mach 2.5 or more on the deck before initiating such a climb, and go straight up afterwards without losing any speed (or go even faster if it were not going straight up).
I don't know of any jet-powered aircraft that can go such a speed at such a low altitude, never mind one with a relatively large delta wing like the Eurofighter.
...0-12000 feet in four seconds? I am extremely sceptical about this.
The plane would have to be able to do roughly Mach 2.5 or more on the deck before initiating such a climb, and go straight up afterwards without losing any speed (or go even faster if it were not going straight up).
I don't know of any jet-powered aircraft that can go such a speed at such a low altitude, never mind one with a relatively large delta wing like the Eurofighter.
The eurofighter is probably 10 ft off the deck on take-off, all the way to the end of the runway picking up as much speed as possible. No doubt it can get to 12,000ft in 4 sec. Mach 2.5? Have you ever been to an air show? The CF-18 climbs to 15,000ft in less than 10 seconds; I can't remember the exact amount anymore. Point is the CF-18 is only going 1/3 of its top speed. Large delta wing is excellent for fast speeds, but poor at slow speeds. Just look at any variable swept wing aircraft like the F-14 that incorporates both the slow speed handling of a conventional wing and the speed of a delta. The concord is another obvious example of a delta.