If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Paul J. Adam
writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' -- John |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John
Halliwell" wrote: In article , Paul J. Adam writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted. By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job. I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum. --Woody |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John Halliwell" wrote: In article , Paul J. Adam writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted. By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job. I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum. No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the F-16s were tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an IR lock (at least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have that problem) with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you -- the wing and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the best bet is undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and maneuverability's almost irrelevant. Guy |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:41:18 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John Halliwell" wrote: In article , Paul J. Adam writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted. By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job. I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum. No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the F-16s were tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an IR lock (at least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have that problem) with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you -- the wing and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the best bet is undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and maneuverability's almost irrelevant. Guy Well, according to Sharkey, everyone should scrap all aircraft other than the SHAR, as it is the greatest a/c ever conceived for all roles imaginable. Al Minyard |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote:
snip Well, according to Sharkey, everyone should scrap all aircraft other than the SHAR, as it is the greatest a/c ever conceived for all roles imaginable. I'm sure you can provide a cite for the exact quote where he said that ;-) Guy |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in
: On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article , "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John Halliwell" wrote: In article , Paul J. Adam writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted. By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job. I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum. No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the F-16s were tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an IR lock (at least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have that problem) with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you -- the wing and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the best bet is undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and maneuverability's almost irrelevant. Guy True... Very true. --Woody Man that's laughable. The Brits enjoy trumping up the very minor curious attributes of their strange birds. They say similar things about the other assets that comprise their fleet of indigenously designed aircraft. May I name a few? The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the development time for the Foxhunter radar). How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ... sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles. Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to maintain. Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting deep.) I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed). What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance. The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used to enhance lift. I love the Brits. -Chuck |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ... sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles. The English Electric Lightning F.6 carried two 30mm Aden in a belly pack. Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting deep.) I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed). If I read you correctly, just a small point. The Buccaneer was retired from RAF service in 1994. The Buccaneer still flies today on the private scene in South Africa. TJ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck Johnson wrote in message ... "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in : On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article , "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John Halliwell" wrote: In article , Paul J. Adam writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted. By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job. I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum. No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the F-16s were tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an IR lock (at least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have that problem) with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you -- the wing and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the best bet is undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and maneuverability's almost irrelevant. Guy True... Very true. --Woody Man that's laughable. The Brits enjoy trumping up the very minor curious attributes of their strange birds. They say similar things about the other assets that comprise their fleet of indigenously designed aircraft. May I name a few? Please try. The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the development time for the Foxhunter radar). What to talk about it? It took more time for development. How long was AWG-9 overdue? How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ... sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles. Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to maintain. You have no clue. F.3 had no gun (F.3A had, just for Your information). And for the range, MiG-21 is no better (range, performance, radar-only better armament) and is still in service. Maintainability was no problem in UK, only. Saudi and Kuwaiti maintainers didn't get enough training, that's it. BTW, when Egypt bought F-4E from USA, soon they had 75% unserviceability because of the poor training. Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting deep.) I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed). What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance. The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used to enhance lift. Go visit http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/contents.html to learn something about Brit planes because what You write has nothing to do with the reality. I love the Brits. And You should to. -Chuck Nele NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 wasn't considered for the F3 job. It was considered, sorry forced
onto the list by the yanks, for the original bomber role when the government realised that cancelling TSR2 was probably the biggest mistake ever made. The F3 came about because there was nothing else around that did the job that was wanted. It did have problems, but speak to any of the crews from the Red Flag, and they were full of admiration for F3 crews. We had datalink capability that the americans didnt use, and we whipped their ass! (Until they caught up, but then the ruskies didnt have anything similar at that time) "Nele_VII" wrote in message ... Chuck Johnson wrote in message ... "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in : On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article , "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John Halliwell" wrote: In article , Paul J. Adam writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted. By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job. I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum. No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the F-16s were tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an IR lock (at least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have that problem) with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you -- the wing and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the best bet is undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and maneuverability's almost irrelevant. Guy True... Very true. --Woody Man that's laughable. The Brits enjoy trumping up the very minor curious attributes of their strange birds. They say similar things about the other assets that comprise their fleet of indigenously designed aircraft. May I name a few? Please try. The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the development time for the Foxhunter radar). What to talk about it? It took more time for development. How long was AWG-9 overdue? How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ... sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles. Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to maintain. You have no clue. F.3 had no gun (F.3A had, just for Your information). And for the range, MiG-21 is no better (range, performance, radar-only better armament) and is still in service. Maintainability was no problem in UK, only. Saudi and Kuwaiti maintainers didn't get enough training, that's it. BTW, when Egypt bought F-4E from USA, soon they had 75% unserviceability because of the poor training. Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting deep.) I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed). What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance. The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used to enhance lift. Go visit http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/contents.html to learn something about Brit planes because what You write has nothing to do with the reality. I love the Brits. And You should to. -Chuck Nele NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Osprey vs. Harrier | Stephen D. Poe | Military Aviation | 58 | August 18th 03 03:17 PM |