It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian MFI

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Hate to argue with this fact but the Dutch Airforce RECENTLY (2003 I believe) received their AIM-120's, so the dutch F-16 used a AIM-9 more than likely.

You might want to doublecheck your info. I can look up the details if you want, but it has been reported in many sources. Here is an example:



Combat

On March 24th, 1999, a Dutch F-16 (#J-063), part of the Dutch-Belgian DATF based at Amendola AFB in Southern Italy, caught sight of a Serbian Mig-29 appearing on its radar screen. The pilot did not hesitate one moment and fired an AIM-120 missile towards the target. After a few seconds a kill was confirmed and the first Dutch kill after WWII was a fact.

On April 4th, 1999, Dutch F-16s engaged ground targets with the AGM-65G, marking the first time this missile was fired in anger bij the RNlAF.

www.f-16.net...


Edit to add: Here is a picture of the AC, J-063, taken on July 24th, 1999. Check out the missile on the wingtip, clearly an AIM-120.

www.f-16.net...

Here's a link and a quote from the May 1996 issue of Arms Trade News:



NAME: AIM-120 AMRAAM

COMPANY: Hughes Missile Systems, Raytheon Missile Systems

PLANT LOCATION: Tuscon, AZ (Hughes); Lowell, MA (Raytheon)

DESCRIPTION: The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, over-the-horizon weapon that can be launched day or night, in any weather, and has a range of approximately 20 miles. Its state-of-the-art radar guidance system allows a pilot to fire the missile and break away to leave the area or simultaneously engage other targets. AMRAAMs are compatible with F/A-18 C/D, F-16, F-15, F-14, German F-4, and British Sea Harrier aircraft. AMRAAMs cost $386,000 each.

NOTES: AMRAAM production began in March 1988. Thus far, 10,629 have been ordered by the Air Force and the Navy and over 5,000 by at least 12 other countries including: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, South Ko-rea, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. State Department decisions are pending on U.S. AMRAAM exports to Austria, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.

www.clw.org...




[edit on 1-12-2004 by engineer]




posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Well, I stand corrected, well I am proud of the Dutch fly boys anyway...!

I am losing my grip on time, I really thought we didn't get AMRAAMs till 2001-2003...oh well...

Thanks for the update...

WOW! Holland splashed a MiG-29!



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
someone said that the Su-37 has a 2d thrust vectoring engine just like the F/A-22, and gave me a link to globalsecurity.org, well, i went there, and read the Su-37, in the third paragraph and on line 7, the third word, states that it has 3d thrust vectoring, i'm not sure about the eurofighter, haven't paid much attention to it, can i get some info



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The Eurofighter isn't very interesting, it's highly manauverable but doesn't have any interesting technology like Thrust Vectoring...



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
it has 3d thrust vectoring technology, thats all i know though



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
The Eurofighter isn't very interesting, it's highly manauverable but doesn't have any interesting technology like Thrust Vectoring...

it does have super cruise , first in the world to have it production model.
also its a light fighter. its designed to take on small thing not a SU37.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   
su 37 has 2D THRUST VECTORING ONLY! i suggest you read the info more carefully. On global security and other reputable sites it clearly states that the su37 has vectoring IN THE PITCH AXIS ONLY. i.e. it operates in the same way as the f22 only it is a slightly more rudimentary system. there are widely available videos that clearly show the movement of these nozzles.i will try to find a link.

the eurofighter has a 3d tv engine currently under development. the engine has been running on a test bed for some time and is being mooted as a possible addition to tranche three of the aircraft delivery programme. i will also post a link for this, allthough if you go to the f-22 vs su37 thread you will find i have posted these links there allready.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Well that's good to hear, I forgot about it's supercruising, it also has an excellent Radar system I believe...

I don't think it's a light fighter, it's in the same class as the F-16...more or less a medium fighter...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Typhoon isn't a light fighter, no, medium is about right if you class Raptor and the Flanker family as 'heavy fighters'. I would class the F-16 as a light fighter though, well, light-ish.

As for interesting technologies in the Typhoon, its true that it has 3d tv in development but it also has most of the tech that Raptor fans rave about while dismissing Typhoon as 'unadventurous' plus the marvellous PIRATE, the most advanced and effective passive target acquisition system in existence and direct voice input for many command functions. The Typhoon is such a complex and advanced aircraft it does annoy me when people appear to dismiss it as if it was nothing more than a twin jet mirage with canards.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
The Eurofighter isn't very interesting, it's highly manauverable but doesn't have any interesting technology like Thrust Vectoring...

it does have super cruise , first in the world to have it production model.
also its a light fighter. its designed to take on small thing not a SU37.


How do you conclude that the EF is a light fighter - it's wieght is closer to that of the Raptor then to an F-16, JSF etc.

It's stated mission is air superiority. Thus it WOULD have to deal with a Su-37. If not the Typhoon, then what exactly would?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The Typhoon is such a complex and advanced aircraft it does annoy me when people appear to dismiss it as if it was nothing more than a twin jet mirage with canards.


Got to agree with you there. The Typhoon is the most advanced fighter in the world, with the exception of the Raptor. If one were to put a food chain to fighters, it would sit above every Russian aircraft that everyone seems to be so in love with, and probably every US one as well, including the F-15 (again, with the exception of the Raptor).

[edit on 2-12-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


How do you conclude that the EF is a light fighter - it's wieght is closer to that of the Raptor then to an F-16, JSF etc.

just its whole specs and what people have said about it made it in my opinion a light fighter. though from the response i get from this i may change my view


It's stated mission is air superiority. Thus it WOULD have to deal with a Su-37. If not the Typhoon, then what exactly would?

i dunno, as i said before its whole appearance and such gave me the impression of a light fighter. a well equipped one but still a light fighter.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
yea, it is kinda peculiar that globalsecurity.org would contradict their own statements in the previous paragraph, i also noticed that it said that it could only chnage the direction of the pitch and not the yaw, yet in the next paragraph, stated that it had a 3d thrust vectoring engine, maybe a typo

yes its probably a typo, i've further researched this topic and have concluded that it DOES have 2d thrust vectoring engines, first time apologizing, sorry



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by American Mad Man


How do you conclude that the EF is a light fighter - it's wieght is closer to that of the Raptor then to an F-16, JSF etc.

just its whole specs and what people have said about it made it in my opinion a light fighter. though from the response i get from this i may change my view


It's stated mission is air superiority. Thus it WOULD have to deal with a Su-37. If not the Typhoon, then what exactly would?

i dunno, as i said before its whole appearance and such gave me the impression of a light fighter. a well equipped one but still a light fighter.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by devilwasp]


From the Typhoon website:



In the rapidly evolving nature of modern warfare, one capability need remains constant and above all others - Air Superiority. The speed and certainty by which Air Superiority can be established in a battle environment, will determine how quickly and safely other operational tasks can be met. Eurofighter Typhoon is to deliver Air Superiority of the highest order.


Wieght: Maximum (Take-off) 23,500kg (51,809lb)
Wing Span: 10.95m (35ft 11in)
Wing Aspect Ratio: 2:205
Length (Overall): 15.96m (52ft 4in)
Height: 5.28m (17ft 4in)
Wings (Gross): 50.0m2 (538ft2)
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.0
Operational Runway Length:



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
This is kind of how I class them,

Light fighters; Viper, Tejas, Gripen, Mirage 2K5
Medium fighters; Typhoon, Rafale, Fulcrum.
Heavy fighters; Eagle, Raptor, and Flankers.

I admit this is kind of arbitrary.

There is no real definition of when you go from light to medium to heavy, just rough guidelines. Most single engine AC can be considered light, and most twins are medium/heavy. Anything over 55k lbs gross weight I consider heavy.


[edit on 2-12-2004 by engineer]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
the fulcrum should also be towards the botom of the medium class because it weighs only 14, 900 kg which is about 32, 000 lbs.

site www.migavia.ru...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join