Hummingbird Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share Posted May 7, 2015 No problem. Its just that it has been posted several times on this forum and frankly isn't worth the attention :D Well you're all welcome to debunk it one more time then :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I know the Mirage F1 is more of a 3rd gen fighter, but since it seems we're getting both of them and they came out around the same time.... How would a Mirage F1 fair against a Tomcat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share Posted May 7, 2015 I know the Mirage F1 is more of a 3rd gen fighter, but since it seems we're getting both of them and they came out around the same time.... How would a Mirage F1 fair against a Tomcat? Poorly in sustained maneuvers, but the Mirage will outperform most other fighters in instantaneous maneuvers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share Posted May 7, 2015 Btw I posted these in the F-14 forum, but they are relevant here as well as a comparison of the teen fighters: Sustained G performance of the F-14A & D, F-16C & F-15C in comparison at 10,000 ft F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft: Mach = G-load 0.2 = 1.2 0.3 = 1.95 0.4 = 2.95 0.5 = 4.0 0.6 = 5.0 0.7 = 5.3 0.75 = 5.6 F-14A @ 53,873 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft: Mach = G-load 0.2 = 1.1 0.3 = 1.8 0.4 = 2.8 0.5 = 3.9 0.6 = 4.9 0.7 = 5.2 0.75 = 5.5 F-16C @ 26,000 lbs w/ 2x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-120's + 2x FT pylons @ 10,000 ft: Mach = G-load 0.2 = CAT limited 0.3 = 1.8 0.4 = 2.7 0.5 = 3.55 0.6 = 4.5 0.7 = 5.5 0.75 = 6.0 F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft: Mach = G-load 0.2 = 1.0 0.3 = 1.8 0.4 = 2.6 0.5 = 3.4 0.6 = 4.3 0.7 = 5.25 0.75 = 5.7 Once again all the figures are from the aircraft's respective manuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basher54321 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) The original writing was posted here http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread43337/pg14 fulcrumflyer is actually Fred "Spanky" Clifton on F-16.net - and if you see here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=155456 more of the same - guess someone could actually ask him. Its also the same guy that wrote: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 Note: - Even in this one he had to change his mind regarding his speculation over the F-35 - but he hasn't flown that. Yes most of it appears spot on - some of it is being taken out of context on here and he does put praise on the MiG-29 where he can - it's a fair analysis. Also the article is a comparison between the Jets he actually flew - so its no point blabbing on about other comparisons because he only flew MiG-29A/Gs it seems. Edited May 7, 2015 by Basher54321 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basher54321 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Seriously, I don't think this paper was written by someone knowledgeable rather it feels like it was written by and arm chair journalist. hmmm see post above ...... F-16 can't(it will depart from normal flight) nope - it will fly just fine. In BVR he says both can detect target at same distance but F-16 can launch at longer distance but this guys is forgetting that until 1996 Aim-120A/B had almost the same range as R-27R and being a bit faster can reach target faster. The range you can fire at depends on a few things including the radars ability to go through any jamming and provide a firing solution because detecting and getting a firing solution are different things. He does actually explain some of the reasons why this was. Also one would hope he is writing in experience of actual practical weapons employment ranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combatace Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 hmmm see post above nope - it will fly just fine. The range you can fire at depends on a few things including the radars ability to go through any jamming and provide a firing solution because detecting and getting a firing solution are different things. He does actually explain some of the reasons why this was. Also one would hope he is writing in experience of actual practical weapons employment ranges. You are just adding different terms to prove him right. He never mentioned your points for longer shot rather he mentioned the longer range of AIM-120. And before Aim-120C came you can go and check out the ranges of A and B models. Throwing jargons isn't going to alter the facts. And I tend not to trust guys who boast too much about their experience. Actually what I have seen is people who have more knowledge tend to be subtle in their talk. To support my models please donate to paypal ID: hp.2084@gmail.com https://www.turbosquid.com/Search/Artists/hero2084?referral=hero2084 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basher54321 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) You are just adding different terms to prove him right. He never mentioned your points for longer shot rather he mentioned the longer range of AIM-120. And before Aim-120C came you can go and check out the ranges of A and B models. Throwing jargons isn't going to alter the facts. And I tend not to trust guys who boast too much about their experience. Actually what I have seen is people who have more knowledge tend to be subtle in their talk. Okay calm down - just trying to point you in the right direction. e.g. there are no range charts for the AIM-120 publicly available that I have seen. Edited May 8, 2015 by Basher54321 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combatace Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Okay calm down - just trying to point you in the right direction. e.g. there are no range charts for the AIM-120 publicly available that I have seen. I don't know if you have seen the data sheets produced by Raython for its missiles, they look like advertisement material rather then datasheets. And AFAIK Aim-120-C5 achieved a Pk of 46% against target drones( non maneuvering, non evading and not even spoofing chaffs and one hit was a heli). You can get data on R-27s and others from herehttp://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/ Edited May 8, 2015 by combatace To support my models please donate to paypal ID: hp.2084@gmail.com https://www.turbosquid.com/Search/Artists/hero2084?referral=hero2084 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basher54321 Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) I don't know if you have seen the data sheets produced by Raython for its missiles, they look like advertisement material rather then datasheets. And AFAIK Aim-120-C5 achieved a Pk of 46% against target drones( non maneuvering, non evading and not even spoofing chaffs and one hit was a heli). You can get data on R-27s and others from here There is no useful information for modern missile performance in the public domain - those simple figures are quite useless (even if they were accurate) because they don't even tell you if they are kinetic, NEZ for a given platform, or even for example the altitude of the target - you would need charts showing the flight profile for altitude vs launch speed. In any case what you should have taken from what I put above was that it doesnt matter if a radar missile has stated kinetic range of 4000000 miles for a given altitude and launch speed - if your radar cant lock the target till ten miles out then you cannot launch till then - ...thats before we go into the actual limitations of SARH type guidance. Edited May 9, 2015 by Basher54321 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts