Originally posted by FULCRUM

This is something quite unusual as IDF/AF doesn’t even want to send its aircraft to international air shows,
as they fear that these might be 'needed'..

And as you can see the pic is taken in 20.8.2003..

And it is a Red Flag in which they are.. Red Flags are quite realistic exercises..
are they really preparing for a war?

Or did they practice scenarios for the (then) up coming IDF/AF strike to Syria?

Regarding the IDF at Red Flag.

So what? Israel, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada were there at the same time, just training and keeping that edge.

As for the Israelis preparing for war… aren’t they always?

Only two Middle Eastern countries, Egypt and Israel, have been represented at Red Flag –

intelgurl

Originally posted by FULCRUM
'Direct copy'..

Or "inspired" by.. all the same to me..

It is only words..

Oh, I see... then using that logic the Russian SBI-16 Zaslon M radar IS a direct copy of the AWG-9 radar?

j/k just giving you hard time....

intelgurl

intelgurl,

About IDF/AF and Red Flag..

It is highly unusual for IDF/AF sending ANY aircrafts to outside of Israel..

As they practicly have a 'law' (guideline..) that says that these arent supposed to be sent..

As it make crews and jets unavailable.. for operations..
(Sorry i cant explain that any better in English..)



And..

"Oh, I see... then using that logic the Russian SBI-16 Zaslon M radar IS a direct copy of the AWG-9 radar?"

Well it is?

Russians only modified the AWG-9, gave it more powerful transmitter and added a phased array 'scanner'..
(and so, much more powerful, and much more accurate..)

Some even claim that the MiG-29s 'Zhuk' radar is reverse enginered F-16 A radar APG-66..
(KGB stole the blue-prints..?)

IDF @ Red Flag:
There is nothing special or unusual about the IDF being at Red Flag - in fact they are there more often than they aren't... in recent years - 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002 and 2003 the IDF has participated at Red Flag.
SO they hardly ever send their aircraft out of Israel? Perhaps - but they participate at Red Flag more often than not.
But I guess that since this IS a conspiracy theory web site that it is inevitable that one would try to find a conspiracy behind every door.

Direct Copy:
Direct copy implies something akin to a clone - one thing just like the other... or very close to it.
Saying that the SBI-16 is a direct copy of the AWG-9 is an insult to the intelligent developers who built the SBI-16 better that the AWG-9, it is based on the same technology but thoroughly enhanced and the actual schematic structure bears no resemblance to the 9.

Not that it is really important to argue the point except that it's just fun to argue with you!

intelgurl

[Edited on 18-10-2003 by intelgurl]

[Edited on 18-10-2003 by intelgurl]

Originally posted by intelgurl
Fulcrum,

Just thought I'd say, "Nice thread", although I really have nothing additional to contribute to it concerning the F-16.

It will be interesting to see how the F-35 does as the F-16's replacement.

I had the opportunity to see an F-35B (actually still designated X-35B i believe), taxi in one night - they really don't look as "boxy" in real life as they do in the pictures...

I was in the coffee shop and the 35's test pilot came in, (he wasn't wearing a wedding ring either - but I digress...)
Some of the guys asked him about the 35, and he was telling them all kinds of stuff using hand gestures to illustrate with, etc. He also spoke of how extremely agile the aircraft was.

One thing that he said was that the 35B's STOVL capablilty was the easiest to control/operate of any other STOVL aircraft - ever.
Of course that was his subjective viewpoint, but he was obviously impressed.

intelgurl

I saw a program about the F-35 (then X-35). Apparently it uses a computer-assisted control system for the VTOL mode that can basically allow you to let go of the stick and the plane would right itself.
Using a lift fan would also be an easier way to compensate for differences in ambient air - ie the ratio of hot-cold air being exhausted is not constant. Erm... in plain English, you get differing amounts of thrust from the hot and cold exhaust nozzles of the Harrier depending on altitude, temperature, humidity, etc. As far as I know there's a gearbox system that regulates lift fan RPM. You also eliminate those pesky 90 degree bends that kill the thrust in the Harrier. I would also think that the F-35, having plenty of power in vertical thrust mode, doesn't depend on an inboard water tank for cooling like the Harrier.

I suppose you could go on and on and find all sorts of things that are interesting and better in the F-35 than in the Harrier - still, the Harrier was a quantum leap forward in its time.

i think that the F/A-18 is the best lightest fighter, it was the first airplane with extreme percision and was extensivly used, even more than the f-16 because the f-16 is only an airforce jet and the f-18 is used with the marines and Navy.

F/A-18s list is very short,
(Only 2 J-7s? [These are Chinese MiG-21 clones..])

F-16s list is very long..
(MiG-21/23/25/29s.. and plenty Helicopters and couple Sukhoi FBs.. [17/22s] and Yugoslavian G-2/G-4s [Trainer aircrafts used as FBs..] maybe some other aircrafts also..)

Go figure..

Originally posted by FULCRUM
F/A-18s list is very short,
(Only 2 J-7s? [These are Chinese MiG-21 clones..])

F-16s list is very long..
(MiG-21/23/25/29s.. and plenty Helicopters and couple Sukhoi FBs.. [17/22s] and Yugoslavian G-2/G-4s [Trainer aircrafts used as FBs..] maybe some other aircrafts also..)

Go figure..

hmm tell me, how many of the aircraft you listed for the f-16 are naval or troop cover aicraft? and has the F-16 left room for improvment like the F/a-18(although ithought it wasnt needed), when it was upgraded into the Super Hornet in the past decade. now if you look carefully youll see that the F/A-18 was mainly used to bomb off land and on land targets mainly although it could counter air, its main purpose was to be a strike bomber. so in this case, aircraft kills dont really matter. wuts the point of aircraft, if you dont have a runway to launch them off of? thats where the hornet comes in, bomb the airbase rendering air power impossible.

I love the Hornet, too. Have stated as much here, actually. However, in defense of the F-16...

The Hornet and Falcon were origionally designed for the same purpose, that of light fighter, but now their roles are different.

The Falcon cannot be used as a naval aircraft. The Navy likes to have its planes with two engines, as a fail-safe. This is why the Air Force declined to accept the Hornet as its fighter, too much upkeep... not upkeep... umm... too many redundancies?

The Falcon, being a strict fighter, is more manuverable than the Hornet. Slower speed, perhaps, but this allows for tighter turn radius. The Hornet, on the other hand, is faster, can carry a wider range of weaponry, but it is a duel class vehicle.

And that is where the distinction ends. The Hornet is an F/A, the Falcon is just an F.

Since this thread is about lightest fighter, the designation F/A doesn't belong.

Although, the Hornet is a better craft. Just defending the thread!

ok i dont think this belongs, the first post stated that the F-16 falcon was a multirole aircraft. ok wut is you source for this information? the f-16 was not a multirole, its why the navy and marines wouldnt accept it, the navy and marines didnot need airsupiriority for it already had the tomcat. and the F/A-18 is the lightest jet and is only a one seater and with only the flick of a switch can turn into an air supiriority aircraft.

I know this is only academic but which do people on here think is the best aircraft (as their latest incarnations are today)

F-16 or F-18

Both were developed for the same fly off contest with the YF-16 (F-16) winning against the YF-17 (later developed into the F-18 for the navy who principly objected to having only one engine).

I don't know enough about each aircraft to have any opinion, but it seems to be an interesting question

PS sorry if this has been covered on a previous thread

Thanks Jettsetter for your find, I wonder how the new (larger) Super Hornet stacks up against the F-16D

Originally posted by Popeye
Thanks Jettsetter for your find, I wonder how the new (larger) Super Hornet stacks up against the F-16D

much better in all except maneuverability, Oceana is getting its first Super Hornets this fall and Langely will be getting its raptors 6 months later, so ill be one happy camper