Read the forum code of contact
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 04:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What kind of threads are the worst threads possible ? The "vs threads".
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 05:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What kind of threads are the worst threads possible ? The "vs threads".
well to be fair, most of the time we try to compare different aircraft to other in their own thread, so why not make a '' vs thread" to compare them , after all weapon such as fighter is designed to fight again other
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 05:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These threads never lead to anything good, have to agree with Twinblade here.
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 05:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So we have an aircraft that entered service a decade ago, an aircraft of uncertain configuration and development status, and an aircraft that exists as drawings alone. Even by 'vs.' standards this is rather questionable.
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So we have an aircraft that entered service a decade ago, an aircraft of uncertain configuration and development status, and an aircraft that exists as drawings alone. Even by 'vs.' standards this is rather questionable.
For once we agree...
How about Optimus Prime:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235480[/ATTACH]
Versus...
The Kraken! :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235481[/ATTACH]
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 14:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For once we agree...How about Optimus Prime:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235480[/ATTACH]
Versus...
The Kraken! :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235481[/ATTACH]
Kraken win
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 14:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So we have an aircraft that entered service a decade ago, an aircraft of uncertain configuration and development status, and an aircraft that exists as drawings alone. Even by 'vs.' standards this is rather questionable.
i know but there are still things that are known for these fighter such as their weapons load out, engine they will use, F-16 block 60 is similar to previous F-16, LCA mk II use a stronger radar and engine but have same aerodynamic as previous LCA, Mig-35 is same as Mig-29 SMT in aerodynamic but use AESA radar + heavier +"have TVC engine so i think we can somewhat compare them
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BVR:
in term of RCS
F-16 have RCS =1.2 m2 clean
Mig-35 have RCS = 0.3 m2 clean
LCA have RCS = 0.1 m2 clean
in term of radar :
F-16 carry APG-80 that have performer as follows :
APG-80 AESA (F-16E)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195 km+
LCA mk ii carry Uttam AESA radar with maximum range of 100 km
http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.aspx?id=V$$VXz8ntmj4=
Mig-35 can carry Zhuk-AE that can detect target from 130 km ( i think they assume fighter target
http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/aesaradar_zhuk_AE.htm
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 15:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the answer to this one is easy
F-16E for all
LCA Mk2 and MiG-35 are vaporware. they don't exist.
You can argue they could or would be built, and they will have all these fancy things. but unless they are actually inducted into service, they don't exist.
just like the super duper Typhoon with AESA shooting meteors.. how long have we been waiting now?
By: - 22nd February 2015 at 16:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't spread your naughtiness across every thread Bacon old man
By: - 23rd February 2015 at 02:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree with others on this one.
In simplest example, are you SURE about what MiG-35 will use for ordnance? IMHO, if RuAF wants MiG-35 to fill numbers or simply keep MiG company in business, MiG-35 will use pretty much what legacy MiG-29S uses; R-27R/T/RE/TE for BVR, R-73 for WVR, and Kh-31P for SEAD. If however, RuAF wants MiG-35 for a long term lightweight aircraft until they field their own F-35 in 2030 or so, MiG-35 will (eventually) use what is developed for PAK-FA; RVV-SD and RVV-BD for BVR, RVV-MD for WVR, and Kh-58UShKe for SEAD.
All else being equal, a theoratical MiG-35 armed with 2x RVV-BD, 4xRVV-SD and 2xRVV-MD is simply not comperable to the same MiG-35 with 2xR-27RE and 6xR-73 (I don't think R-77 will ever enter service with RuAF when its replacement is already in trials).
Same apply to LCA which is still on the drawing board. and one can argue how F-16E would be developed by the time MiG-35 or LCA-2 finally enters service. All these would be too much speculation with too little information; leads to nothing.
By: - 23rd February 2015 at 04:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree with others on this one.In simplest example, are you SURE about what MiG-35 will use for ordnance? IMHO, if RuAF wants MiG-35 to fill numbers or simply keep MiG company in business, MiG-35 will use pretty much what legacy MiG-29S uses; R-27R/T/RE/TE for BVR, R-73 for WVR, and Kh-31P for SEAD. If however, RuAF wants MiG-35 for a long term lightweight aircraft until they field their own F-35 in 2030 or so, MiG-35 will (eventually) use what is developed for PAK-FA; RVV-SD and RVV-BD for BVR, RVV-MD for WVR, and Kh-58UShKe for SEAD.
All else being equal, a theoratical MiG-35 armed with 2x RVV-BD, 4xRVV-SD and 2xRVV-MD is simply not comperable to the same MiG-35 with 2xR-27RE and 6xR-73 (I don't think R-77 will ever enter service with RuAF when its replacement is already in trials).
Same apply to LCA which is still on the drawing board. and one can argue how F-16E would be developed by the time MiG-35 or LCA-2 finally enters service. All these would be too much speculation with too little information; leads to nothing.
Fair enough how about compare LCA mk I vs mig-29 smt vs f-16E?
btw why Ruaf dont buy R-77? , is it really that bad?
By: - 23rd February 2015 at 04:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair enough how about compare LCA mk I vs mig-29 smt vs f-16E?
btw why Ruaf dont buy R-77? , is it really that bad?
RuAF did not buy anything in that time period, has nothing to do with performance.
Now they are planning to buy an essentially modernized R-77, that is all domestic.
By: - 23rd February 2015 at 05:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i know but there are still things that are known for these fighter such as their weapons load out, engine they will use, F-16 block 60 is similar to previous F-16, LCA mk II use a stronger radar and engine but have same aerodynamic as previous LCA, Mig-35 is same as Mig-29 SMT in aerodynamic but use AESA radar + heavier +"have TVC engine so i think we can somewhat compare them
Wrong there..the LCA Mk2 has a longer fuselage with a 0.5m plug being added and some aerodynamic refinements are being done as well..when compared to the LCA Mk1, it will feature even better avionics with a new cockpit with larger displays, integrated EW suite, AESA radar, more fuel and more payload.
By: - 23rd February 2015 at 06:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair enough how about compare LCA mk I vs mig-29 smt vs f-16E?
btw why Ruaf dont buy R-77? , is it really that bad?
not sure why you included the LCA period, its not even in the same weight category. its much cheaper and much less performance. perhaps you can even get 2 LCA for the price of one F-16.
F-16E and MiG-29SMT?
The Viper has more range, an aesa radar, and cleared to carry far more a2g.
SMT probably has an advantage in raw performance because the 16E is a fatty so the 16E better pick it off at a good distance before getting close in.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 22nd February 2015 at 04:44
which one is best in BVR? which one is best in WVR? , which one is best in SEAD?
vs
vs