Skull Leader Posted October 4, 2004 Posted October 4, 2004 Kinda sad that Iran boasts more air-to-air kills with OUR fighter than us.... also note they are the only people to still actively fly F-14As Those birds are as old or older than many of our tomcats still on the flightline and so far as I know, the IIAF has no intention of retiring them any time soon! Let's rub it in some more... They did it with A-models.. with the underpowered, somewhat unreliable engines.. no phoneixes.. using locally produced parts.. The shame of it all. The biggest, baddest bird off a steam cat and the only nation flying it is using it off LAND bases! :D lol... to quote Rodney Carrington: "...... that'll piss ya off....."
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 4, 2004 Author Posted October 4, 2004 HEH. Funny how the iranians know how to use OUR top carrier borne fighter more than the hornet mafia and dick cheney do! In fact all US kills with the tomcat are all short range as well. only 1 sparrow hit a target in the 89 encounter and the other kill was a swinder'. In 81 both kills were with the swinder' as well. Now the MI-8 hip kill was either guns or swinder'. The time tomcats from teh US DID fire the phoenix was during 98-99 against iraqi migs but the missles missed. Did you guys ever wonder what might have happened had the revolution in iran NOT happened? More ADVANCED export tomcats! AND perhaps enough funds for the F-14C(back then and F-14B PW engine) and eve tomcat 21!!! Oh well. BTW iran's former air force once ruled but now I am sure saudi arabia and israel could take them out easily. Their main fighter now is the phantom i believe...due to the lax in getting supplies for it worldwide.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 4, 2004 Author Posted October 4, 2004 DAvid, and all FLANKER FANS! ESpecially NAval!! Su-33/Mig 1.44MFI/Su-30MKI videos!! http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/Su_33/su_33.htm has russian text so I do not know what it means. But nice videos!!
ewilen Posted October 4, 2004 Posted October 4, 2004 Probably Czech, not Russian, but great stuff in any case. Neat find, Shin! Wondering...why is it, when practically the whole world is putting canards on their newest fighters, the US doesn't have them on the Super Hornet, Raptor, or JSF? Are canards completely incompatible with stealth, or is there some other reason?
David Hingtgen Posted October 4, 2004 Posted October 4, 2004 First, here's the Iranian F-14 book review: http://misc.kitreview.com/bookreviews/iran...kreviewkb_1.htm Secondly---the main reason US planes don't have canards is simply because most US designers don't like them, for reasons unknown. Most famously they're not on the F-16, because the chief designer said something along the lines of "The best location for a canard is on somebody else's plane". An F-16 with canards would be insanely agile, since they generally allow a plane to be even more unstable. Canards are much more useful/effective on delta-wing planes (which Europe loves), but as the F-15ACTIVE and Super Flanker show, they can still make a "normal" plane a lot more agile. Can't think of any inherent stealth problems, or the Eurofighter wouldn't have them. And if you add them to a YF-23, it'd still only 4 stabs total, same as an F-22.
Noyhauser Posted October 4, 2004 Posted October 4, 2004 Probably Czech, not Russian, but great stuff in any case. Neat find, Shin! It is czech
hellohikaru Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 BTW iran's former air force once ruled but now I am sure saudi arabia and israel could take them out easily. For Israel i'm sure but for Saudi its a bit iffy. Some have called the RSAF a good weather flying club and even if they have good talented aircrews their maintenance is still handled by US and British ex-pats. In other words a paper AF without the Tiger. oh..this is going a bit out of topic so i will just stop here.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 5, 2004 Author Posted October 5, 2004 Well...the saudi's have 2 kills agaibnst the iranians...but aside from that they still get US support and have the F-15S. Then again hardware does not dictate skill so who knows. It's impressive of the book. I will buy it if I can find it.(VA gets everything last arrrr). There is also a book out on the A-7 corsair units navy in vietnam!! Surprised it wasn't mentioned. I will probably get that too. Did anyone read osprey's cryusader mig killers book? It's pretty good! I think one crusader pilot also has the distinction of being the ONLY prisoner to escape from the pathet lao in laos!
David Hingtgen Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 The Osprey Crusader book is GREAT. F-4 books are just as good (I have 2, need to get the rest). Anyways---just picked up another issue of Air Forces Monthly. Very interesting Israeli F-15I pic---had CFT's like an F-15E, loaded with training bombs. I didn't know the F-15I had the full weapons-carrying capability of the F-15E.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 5, 2004 Author Posted October 5, 2004 I th8ink it does, it just lacks some of the sensors and ECM equipment/jammers that we have. My "ultimate book of modern warplanes" book I bought @ waldenbooks has a pic of it with a huge load of orange bombs. Looks real neat. BTW guys did you guys here that the IAF F-16's are going to take on the Indian AF's SU-30MKI's in joint exercises next year? It's going to be awesomE!!!!
hellohikaru Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 Actually the Saudis also had 2 kills earlier using F-15s. The victims were discovered to be Iranian F-4E Phantoms.
SupremeKaioshin Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 It also looked weird as hell...kind of an inverted sharknose. Kind of cool. You can tell by looking at it that it was advanced and a phenomenal design. Kind of how the Su37 is to the SU27 only more radical. Even the normal crusader looked cool. My homeland country(philippines) used to fly some ;saders but now I believe we use the F-5. For the love of god I only wish we get F-20s since my country's military is pretty sorry in that respect. The Philippines should think about purchasing the Swiss JAS-39 Griffen. It's the "F-5" of the 21st century.
hellohikaru Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 The Philippines should think about purchasing the Swiss JAS-39 Griffen. It's the "F-5" of the 21st century. Gripen is a great fighter and i would love to see it get exported but can the Phillipines afford them in decent numbers ? Over the years budget restrictions have prevented them from getting even Kfirs. Maybe they will get surplus F-16A Falcon-Ups from the USAF.
hellohikaru Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 Can someone indentify what type of helmet is this guy wearing ?
mikeszekely Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 It also looked weird as hell...kind of an inverted sharknose. Kind of cool. You can tell by looking at it that it was advanced and a phenomenal design. Kind of how the Su37 is to the SU27 only more radical. Even the normal crusader looked cool. My homeland country(philippines) used to fly some ;saders but now I believe we use the F-5. For the love of god I only wish we get F-20s since my country's military is pretty sorry in that respect. The Philippines should think about purchasing the Swiss JAS-39 Griffen. It's the "F-5" of the 21st century. I thought that Sweden didn't export their fighters. In fact, I thought the reason why they had Saab develop fighters in the first place was so that they didn't have to import any. No reliance on foreign fighters plus no exports equals neutrality.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 5, 2004 Author Posted October 5, 2004 I think they do offer export witht eh gripen. BTW i believe my country was trying to by superhornets but I am not sure. Sad to say my hometown(va beach) has a more powerful airforce (NAS oceana) than my country's own air force LOL!! THis is true!!! F-5's vs F-14/F/A-18C/D/F?!!! HAd no idea PI couldn't even get Kfirs. sad man just sad....hopefully we get a super hornet. MAn it would have rocked if YF-17 was exported and we got it.
Skull Leader Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 (edited) Can someone indentify what type of helmet is this guy wearing ? I'm not good with model names for helments, but good 'ol Shin there appears to be wearing what was the standard helmet for most (US at least) military aviators through the 80s-mid 90s or so. (wow, that so reminds me that I need to watch "Area 88" again...) Edited October 5, 2004 by Skull Leader
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 5, 2004 Author Posted October 5, 2004 definitely a 70s-80s Pilot helmet. Newer ones have less tubing but more of a bigger mouthpiece.
hellohikaru Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 (edited) well...i can tell the mask is the MBU-5/P series...the long pointy type. Did some researching on the helmet and couldn't find one that matches. Those in A88 have those small round fairing at the sides. It looks a bit like APH-2 though... @Mikeszekeley Its not entirely true that Sweden cannot export its fighters. In the 80s they wanted to export the Viggen to India but due to restrction with the RM8(Licensed version of JT8D) the deal fell through. Sweden has already sold a number(34?) of JAS-39C Gripens to South Africa. Unfortunately they didn't do too well in the Chilean and Austrian competition. @Shin I think Super Hornet is too expensive for the Phillipnes considering their current military budget. Furthermore acquiring a US fighter wouldn't suit the current local sentiment. Actually i heard the US did offer an aid package to Manilla that would have provided them with surplus Falcons. I think they rejected the package as there were many strings attached. Edited October 6, 2004 by hellohikaru
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 6, 2004 Author Posted October 6, 2004 MEh the only GOOD thing my country's air force has done besides flying the crusader was WANTING to buy the F-20 tigershark. Surplus falcons would be GREAT. I mean hell least then we would have a comparable modern fighter. At LEAST! Hell vietnam an some other souteast asian countries got flankers now. So yea. IN air supremacy. We'd get owned ...BAD. I'd even settle for ex ANG F-15A's. BTW did you guys see the 2 seat ECM viggen?. It's pretty nice!!
David Hingtgen Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 My new stance: Su-30MKI vs Anything: Su-30MKI http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 6, 2004 Author Posted October 6, 2004 first upF-22!!! F-22s only advantage ove rthis plane is stealth, supercruise, acceleration, and ability to max out AMRAAM range 2x normal by launching@mach 1. SU-27 w/russian avionics/cockpit=POOR SA/PWNED SU-30MKI w/FRENCH/israeli/western avionics/cockpit=butter on bread. When playing flanker on pc the only thing I hated was the avionics. I feltt it was a good fighter for it's size, deadly in fact close in, however now that the MKI has WESTERNN avionics and displays.....dear god...
David Hingtgen Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Nooooooooooooooooooooooo! http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15422
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Posted October 8, 2004 and that begins the end of a great era. BTW david is the novator missle by russia more dangerous than the phoenix? hmmph. I hear flankers can be armed with that. And with Shornets...slow as they are...only with AMRAAMs and potentially outclasses in knife fighting as well.....I just don't know anymore.
Knight26 Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Man I need to wade into this thread more often, love the discussions. I'm not surprised the navy has officially retired the phoenix. Don't get me wrong I love the Phoenix, it is a great weapon system, but has one inherent design flaw, only the tomcat can carry it. With the Tomcat being retired it was inevitable that the Phoenix would fade away as well, unfortunately. Also DH before you stated that US designers have an aversion to canards, that is not true, the aversion to canards comes from the military commanders and higher ups. True designers and aero-engineers, except for a few hardline old timers, all know the inherent greatness that is the canard and most would love to go to an all canard air force and navy. Unfortunately military commander favor the more traditional "standard" wing, tail configuration and tend to shy away from canards. I can't count the number of times I was speaking with a high ranking military type (O-5 or above) and they looked at a plane with a canard only to comment that it was built backwards. Putting a canard on a standard layout aircraft has been proven time again to make it more agile. Infact if you look back the original lockheed proposal for the JSF was a canard, basically it was nearly identical except for the wing/tail layout was in a canard configuration. THey did many tethered hover tests with a test bed back in the 90s and it performed well IIRC, but the navy did not like it because of the canard. Also canards do not have an adverse reaction to stealth and in some cases have helped it, scattering the radar waves before they hit the wing's leading edge. FSWs face a similar problem, engineers love FSWs except for the structural problems they challenge. However old line military higher ups do not like FSWs because of how they look. FSWs as an aside have actully proven to be more stealthy then their non-FSW counterparts, something to do with the wingtips scattering the radar waves, will have to check my books again.
David Hingtgen Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 I love canards, but only in addition to a regular tail. Use them to enhance pitch/roll control, not replace the traditional ones (like most deltas do). The ultimate plane would have FSW, h.stabs, and canards. Hey, that's the Su-47 or F-15ACTIVE... (Well, I'd MOST like a YF-23 style tail, along with large movable ventral fins at a 45 degree angle---an all-flying cruciform configuration) And I'd love to hear more about FSW, canards, and stealth. Get as technical as necessary.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Posted October 8, 2004 (edited) Hmm...the XFA-27 in AC2 has swing wings, canards and a bunch of stabs angled. Would that plane work in real life? AND a question I have wondered since 8th grade, do swing wing canards do anything to supplement swing wingS? *edit I did a digisketch earlier(real quick) of a skystriker which is based on the Tomcat....so since the phoenix was retired an such....I thought you all might like seeing this being that the tomcat is retiring soon* and an X-30 Conquest refueling mid air (quick digipainting) Gijoe planes rule!! Edited October 8, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0
ewilen Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 (edited) Do canards (or at least the canards+delta config) have any effect on ability to land on a carrier? I'm just fishing for some rational reason why the Navy might have nixed the JSF proposal mentioned by Knight26. Edit: BTW, nice sketches, Shin. Edited October 8, 2004 by ewilen
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Posted October 8, 2004 Thanks man!! I too saw some of the earlier canarded JSF proposals, one of them close to the X-36 design. Even the viggen used canards but not like the gripen uses them. Knight ar the oldies against canards because of aesthetics? There was canards on a tomcat prototype but it was not as pronounces as say a viggen's. BTW anyone get a glimpse at sukhois new fighter to replace the flanker? They are developing it and everyone says it is NOT the berkut!(Which does not surprise me in the least but I have a feeling it will look dead sexy)
David Hingtgen Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 (edited) I would presume canards would help carrier landings, by adding lift. More lift=slower approaches. Remember, using the tail to keep the nose up adds downforce. Using canards to keep the nose up unloads the wing and tail. Shin--the XFA-27 is what I was thinking about---X-form tail. Some submarines have controls like that, so it does work. (Subs move in all 3 dimensions, in fluid, via propellers and rudders etc---there's often a lot that subs and planes share in how they move--center of gravity, lifting surfaces, effectiveness of controls in the wake/downwash, etc) Swing canards? Rare, and usually subtle. Only use I know for them is to compensate for large pitch/trim changes due to lowering flaps or deploying airbrakes, etc. The Beech Starship can swing its canards a bit. BTW, the Viggen isn't really considered to have *canards*. More like a double-delta, or even 2 independent delta wings, each with a full set of elevons, etc. A unique and neat plane. (I love most all SAAB planes, I really hope the Gripen is in AC5--best of the Eurocanards IMHO) Edited October 8, 2004 by David Hingtgen
Knight26 Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Do canards (or at least the canards+delta config) have any effect on ability to land on a carrier? I'm just fishing for some rational reason why the Navy might have nixed the JSF proposal mentioned by Knight26.Edit: BTW, nice sketches, Shin. Yes they do have an effect, they make it easier. One of the reasons why Saab has put so much emphasis on canards is because if properly designed they give planes great low speed handling qualities, which is essential for carrier landings. Saab doesn't make them for landing on carriers though, but instead to take off and land from short stretches of highway. This is especially visible on the viggen where the vortices produced by the canards actually help produce lift on the main wing giving it great STOL capablities.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 9, 2004 Author Posted October 9, 2004 David, the gripen IS in the game. CAn't believe you missed that man!! Acecombat.jp has a mini gallery for it in teh information>world news section! HMmm....did canards improve the F-4 FBW CCV's performance dramatically? I just know it looked cool as hell, and in fact the japan FSX proposal originally had canards as well....canards on a falcon inspired airframe.....what a beast. coul canards shaped like those on euro fighters improve tomcats or perhaps crusaders? I imagine those woudl look cool and I always wondered why grumman never experimented with canards. BTW i know this is imaginiative but in air force delta storm on X-box they have a F/A-18S airacobra. A hornet with canards. Looks awesome!! in a sense my philosophy is a great fighter would be one with russian airframe design(not components) and US/western avionics. (Coincidentally this is what the SU-30MKI is!!)
David Hingtgen Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 You know I'm trying to avoid spoilers, and I'd like for a FEW planes to be "nice surprises". Anyways---AFAIK, canards can only help a plane. Yes, you can screw up and design a canard-only plane with horrible stall characteristics (not that anybody has screwed up for a very long time), but adding canards to a design that already has a tail can only help it. I doubt you will ever see another delta without canards. And if the US ever gets a clue, all our future planes should have them. The F-16CCV could do some pretty insane moves. But of course they never did anything more than test them. Just like the F-15ACTIVE: massive performance improvement for low cost? No way they'll put it into production! I've been looking up Flanker missiles lately, trying to determing what I saw recently, I thought it just looked really cool--- "Within the last week" I saw a photo of a Flanker (from below) and it had LOOOOONG missiles under the intakes. Reminded me of AA-10s, but even longer than the longest boosted AA-10. Seemed to go all the way from the intake lip to the exhaust nozzle. Might be the AA-12. If I could find the photo again it'd probably be easy to figure out...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 9, 2004 Author Posted October 9, 2004 THose mightbe the novator A2A version I was asking about. Some sites say it outdistances the phoenix but I am biased so I doubt that. if so.....yea the shornet for fleet defense? yea it'll REALLY shine when defending the group against a fighter that can knock it out long before it can even get close to use its high alpha or AMRAAM. The novator is a huge missle. The SU-32IFN in AFDS has either that or the kitchen missle as a special weapon but both are HUGE. BTW this FRAAm that got brought up....is that a long range missle? Is there ANYTHING in US development that will replace phoenix>? now that we bring up canards. CAn you imagine an F-15K with GE-129 ATF engines?.....whoa.........and canards? ..........................
hellohikaru Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 Dave i believe the missile you are talking about is the Novator AAM-L/KS-1/KS-172. I hear it is based on the S-400 SAM. AA-12/R-77 is shorter than the shortest R-27/AA-10.
Recommended Posts