Next aircraft speculation

[Vampyre]

I'm not sure if it was for the radar to be sure, but drums of alcohol would accompany Mig-25 deployments which proved rather popular with the personnel.

 

I'd definitely be keen for Mig-23 or Mig-25 for their own reasons. Very interesting and difficult aircraft to master, I bet.

 

Just one side question, many pictures I see of the Mig-23 cockpit have no obvious radar scope. Others have a TV screen, which I assume are later variant Mig-27 with optics. Are the scopeless cockpits I see really just early Mig-27s, or am I being completely confused? If they are Mig-23 cockpits then what is the radar output to, some sort of HUD indication?

 

The MiG-23ML/MLD display the Radar information on the HUD. The scopes in the cockpits you are talking about are probably MiG-27K's. The scopes are required for the Kaira targeting system. Do you have links to the photos you are referencing?

[didilman]

Are you sure about that? The F-15E carries a lot more fuel and has a lot more drag than the F-15C. It would have to have a lot more powerful engines than the F-15C to do that.

 

Yes it have more powerful engine , not the same engines on F-15E and F-15C.

http://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15-strike-eagle/#/technical-specifications

Boeing is saying it not me.

Anyone have screens of the 23 MLD cockpit or HUD.

Edited September 12, 2015 by didilman

[tony3d]

i think ( mig-25 ) ( F-4 phantom ) is the best for next aircraft, 1980 iran - iraq war they used

pictures

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

All airplanes have some kind of air speed indication. Clearly, the way forward is submarines.

[Capn kamikaze]

Are you sure about that? The F-15E carries a lot more fuel and has a lot more drag than the F-15C. It would have to have a lot more powerful engines than the F-15C to do that.

 

It's not really got a lot more drag, if you compare an clean C vs a clean E, so we're not bringing lugging bombs around into it, there isn't much between them, the weapons pallets are not that draggy in reality, and the engines are more powerful on the E model.

 

F-15C: 14,590lb dry, 23,770lb afterburner, per engine.

F-15E: 17,800lb dry, 29,160lb afterburner, per engine.

[Dappman]

Yes it have more powerful engine , not the same engines on F-15E and F-15C.

http://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15-strike-eagle/#/technical-specifications

Boeing is saying it not me.

Anyone have screens of the 23 MLD cockpit or HUD.

 

It's not really got a lot more drag, if you compare an clean C vs a clean E, so we're not bringing lugging bombs around into it, there isn't much between them, the weapons pallets are not that draggy in reality, and the engines are more powerful on the E model.

 

F-15C: 14,590lb dry, 23,770lb afterburner, per engine.

F-15E: 17,800lb dry, 29,160lb afterburner, per engine.

 

But it does have a lot more drag. Less than drop tanks but it's still gonna be a noticeable amount. Even with the extra fuel the E models range is down by around 1/3. That's almost all because of the drag (what I've read from multiple sources) I don't think those numbers are official, just estimates. I still have a hard time believing it will do 3,000 km/h.

 

Unless they have actually taken it to 3,000 km/h and its not just an estimate I'll believe it.

[J7G]

Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that we will be getting an F-4. Given the difficulties of other developers attempting the same aircraft. It's been mentioned that there still is much classified about the Phantom. :( While I won't rule it out for the future, maybe something will shake loose! I would dearly love to push Ole' Smokey around the DCS virtual skies!

 

But that's the thing, the other dev that looked at it likely wasn't doing the same one- they were probably looking at the British one. The F-4E is pretty much unclassified except I'd imagine for the radar.

 

I do think it's unlikely but I feel I have to keep on taking down this particular myth.

[Davee]

Are you sure about that? The F-15E carries a lot more fuel and has a lot more drag than the F-15C. It would have to have a lot more powerful engines than the F-15C to do that.

 

Speaking with an F-15E driver, he stated that he would have a hard time keeping up with a modern jet airliner at altitude.

[Capn kamikaze]

But it does have a lot more drag. Less than drop tanks but it's still gonna be a noticeable amount. Even with the extra fuel the E models range is down by around 1/3. That's almost all because of the drag (what I've read from multiple sources) I don't think those numbers are official, just estimates. I still have a hard time believing it will do 3,000 km/h.

 

Unless they have actually taken it to 3,000 km/h and its not just an estimate I'll believe it.

 

You should not assume that they add more drag, one source I've found says that the subsonic drag actually decreases when the FAST pack is installed on the C/D model, more is not always worse in the world of aerodynamics...

 

http://ausairpower.net/Profile-F-15A-D.html

 

It may be true, or may not be, but I learned a while back not to assume things when it comes to aerodynamics.

 

3,000kph is possible, that is about M2.6, which is about where the publically released performance specs are for both the C and E models.

[Capn kamikaze]

Speaking with an F-15E driver, he stated that he would have a hard time keeping up with a modern jet airliner at altitude.

 

Considering the FAST packs were designed for supersonic flight, if we're talking about it being clean apart from the packs then I think he may have been pulling your leg.

 

If he was talking about being fully tooled up though then perhaps....

[Chrinik]

Fixed that for you ;)

 

I can't say that often enough:

Give the europeans some love pls!

You can't have a complete Cold War combat aviation set without the Tornado, not even close!

And that's just one example.

 

No...because this is the wishlist I had for Leatherneck only, and a Tornado is VEAOs job if anyones XD

 

I am european, and I would like a Tornado, but LN has their hands full already.

[Nerd1000]

Considering the FAST packs were designed for supersonic flight, if we're talking about it being clean apart from the packs then I think he may have been pulling your leg.

 

If he was talking about being fully tooled up though then perhaps....

 

The Strike Eagle is primarily an attack aircraft. One could make the argument that performance without external loads is almost totally irrelevant given that it will always be carrying them on a real mission.

[CyStryker]

WWII Prop ac

 

Gents:

 

I want to start out with WWII aircraft. I would like to see matching theater rollouts... Battle of Britain.. SPit V, Me109E, Pacific... Hellcat, COrsair vs.. variants of Zero.... early period of war...

 

I have not flown f16 of F16:Allied Assault for over 5 years... I used to practice every aspect of the plane and learned programing the HOTAS susing the old Foxy program... I rather use the TARGET program .....

 

As soon as I get my TM COUGAR HOTAS to work in Windows 10 I will purchase these sims............. can not wait to fly again.

 

CyStryker

[Capn kamikaze]

The Strike Eagle is primarily an attack aircraft. One could make the argument that performance without external loads is almost totally irrelevant given that it will always be carrying them on a real mission.

 

It's the only way to fairly compare the aircraft itself though, and it IS how max performance specs are arrived at.

[Dudikoff]

Considering the FAST packs were designed for supersonic flight' date=' if we're talking about it being clean apart from the packs then I think he may have been pulling your leg.[/quote']

 

I remember the airliner reference being mentioned in the context of climbing speed.

 

But discussing this 3000 kph speed reference seems pointless without some proof such a flight ever took place. I've always heard references of up to 2.55 Mach and not sure if even that was attained and if so, it was a light and clean configuration. Even if such a speed was attained without damage to the plane or the engines, it still won't mean much as the plane is simply not made to fly at such high speed in operational use (unlike e.g. MiG-25 and MiG-31 which were designed for prolonged flights at speeds of 2+ Mach).

[Capn kamikaze]

Operational use is not the point where speed records and performance are concerned, if you want to find what the aircraft can do then that is all you test, as then you can compare it to other aircraft, what is not fair is comparing a fully loaded E model for example vs a clean C model.

 

The Migs you mention probably can't reach the speeds you mention when fully loaded with weapons either, like with all other industies, aircraft makers advertise their wares under the best possible conditions....

[Fer_Fer]

Operational use is not the point where speed records and performance are concerned, if you want to find what the aircraft can do then that is all you test, as then you can compare it to other aircraft, what is not fair is comparing a fully loaded E model for example vs a clean C model.

 

The Migs you mention probably can't reach the speeds you mention when fully loaded with weapons either, like with all other industies, aircraft makers advertise their wares under the best possible conditions....

 

not really,

the highest speed achieved on the Foxbat was Mach 3.2 over Israel in the 70's. This was a recon version, and it killed off the engines but pretty much shows the frame (and available thrust) were more then sufficient to go faster then the Mach 2,85 that it normally had.

 

Fact is, the Foxbat was an effective interceptor of the Blackbird, so my guess is the speed when fully loaded with fuel and missiles is around the Mach 2.5

[Capn kamikaze]

I can't see a recon version being armed at all so comparing them doesn't tell you much, the fact is no MiG-25 interceptor ever shot down an SR-71 does say a lot though....

[J7G]

Big statement to make considering they never overflew the USSR...

[Fer_Fer]

I can't see a recon version being armed at all so comparing them doesn't tell you much' date=' the fact is no MiG-25 interceptor ever shot down an SR-71 does say a lot though....[/quote']

 

Completely irrelevant as shooting down aircraft of another nation, no matter how cold the diplomatic ties are, is pretty stupid.

[tovivan]

Completely irrelevant as shooting down aircraft of another nation, no matter how cold the diplomatic ties are, is pretty stupid.

 

+1

 

Worst case scenario it would server as an excuse for that other side to start an all-out war, best case scenario a diplomatic mess that would take a lot of time, effort and money to resolve.

 

Unless of course that other plane was shot down violating sovereign airspace and refusing to land or go away, that is (U-2 for example, that was a big mess for Americans, not the Soviets).

[Nerd1000]

I can't see a recon version being armed at all so comparing them doesn't tell you much' date=' the fact is no MiG-25 interceptor ever shot down an SR-71 does say a lot though....[/quote']

 

The Recon model didn't carry weapons, but it did carry a huge (5300L!) external fuel tank. The range on internal fuel was inadequate for recon missions due to poor efficiency of the engines.

[thaisocom]

Completely irrelevant as shooting down aircraft of another nation, no matter how cold the diplomatic ties are, is pretty stupid.

USSR did shoot down a U-2, tho.

[Nerd1000]

USSR did shoot down a U-2, tho.

 

Indeed, Gary Powers's U-2 shot down with a SA-2 SAM. That incident was in many ways the origin of the A-12 and SR-71, because it became clear that the U-2 was no longer safe from soviet air defenses.

 

The USSR also shot down airliners, most notoriously a Korean Airways 747 that became lost and wandered into their airspace. The worst part of that incident was that the Su-15 pilot sent to intercept the 747 positively identified it as a civilian aircraft... and was ordered to shoot it down anyway.

 

Edit: As below I got part of the above wrong.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Nerd1000
factual disclaimer

[Dappman]

Indeed, Gary Powers's U-2 shot down with a SA-2 SAM. That incident was in many ways the origin of the A-12 and SR-71, because it became clear that the U-2 was no longer safe from soviet air defenses.

 

The USSR also shot down airliners, most notoriously a Korean Airways 747 that became lost and wandered into their airspace. The worst part of that incident was that the Su-15 pilot sent to intercept the 747 positively identified it as a civilian aircraft... and was ordered to shoot it down anyway.

 

That's the first time I've ever heard that. I seriously doubt that if Russia knew 100% that it was full of civilians and off course they would have shot it down. In fact, they wouldn't.

 

I don't know what that has to do with the Mig25 and SR71 though.