|
|
Reply #638 BotakChinPeng's post
|
By the word 'interim', do you mean the Legacy, or the Super? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
botak chin must be a fighter pelot, just wanna check with you regarding the passive stealthy aewc aircraft usage in the future, since it can be detected by the passive radar on the ground which will subsequently inform the position of the enemy passive stealthy aewc to friendly fighters nearby, what if the passive stealthy aewc operates outside the ground passive radar envelope?
I guess if the ground passive radar could hv a range of 800km, supposedly the airborne version might have a very much longer range, maybe double or tripple compared to the ground one? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #638 BotakChinPeng\ catat
Who told me F-22 maximum speed is not in the vicinity of mach 2.5 ? nobody 
But most sources n indicates the F-22 should have a maximum speed of mach 2.2 or 2.3 at altitude and around mach 1.3 at sea level. while I read in wikipedia that the F-22 has a top speed greater than 1,600 mph (Mach 2.42), the claim cannot be proven and interestingly, the maximum speed for F-22 is states as Mach 2.25.
hmm... you are saying that the F/A-18E/F serve only an interim replacement for tomcats pending the arrival of F-35s?
gee... I don't know that... 
what I do know is the US Navy has a shortage of tactical fighters and are considering to buy more Super Hornets so much so that it might cut the number of F-35C acquired. Even the US Congress agrees and are pushing the US Navy to go ahead with the plan.
but how good is the F-35C compared to F/A-18E/F? let see now...
F-35C
Crew: 1
Empty weight: 14,547 kg
Loaded weight: 20,100 kg
Max takeoff weight: 27,200 kg
Internal fuel: 9,110 kg
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+
Range: >2,220 km
Combat radius: 1,110 km on internal fuel
G-Limits: F-35A: 9 g, F-35B: 9 g, F-35C: 9 g
Armament
Guns: 1 × GAU-22/A 25 mm cannon — external pod with 220 rounds.
Hardpoints: 6× external pylons on wings with a capacity of 6,800 kg and 2× internal bays with 2 pylons each.
F/A-18E/F
Crew: F/A-18E: 1, F/A-18F: 2
Empty weight: 13,900 kg
Loaded weight: 29,937 kg
Max takeoff weight: 29,900 kg
Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 6,530 kg, F/A-18F: 6,145 kg
External fuel capacity: 7,430 kg
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+
Range: 2,346 km (clean plus two AIM-9s)
Combat radius: 722 km (for interdiction mission)
Armament
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan nose mounted gatling gun, 578 rounds
Hardpoints: 8+ 2× wingtips, with a capacity of 8,050 kg external fuel and ordnance.
make your own conclusions  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
strength of F35 is the stealth. F18 is not a stealth plane. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #639 BotakChinPeng\ catat
I抦 not sure if dogfights can be performed at mach 2.5
but the point I am making is : In the non-stealth era, priority number one must always be to possess a greater no escape zone by having a combination of high speed fighters and long range missiles.
Even though agility is only priority number two, it is still important enough for decision makers in the US and Russia to give up the advantage of having speed above mach 2.5
Feedback from numerous wars has taught both the US and Russia that there will always be situations where fighters find themselves having to fight at close range.
This explains the efforts to make fighters nimbler such as fitting TVC or other agility-centric adaptations which sacrifice some speed.
hmmm.... now you make me all confused. firstly, you said that "priority number one must always be to possess a greater no escape zone by having a combination of high speed fighters and long range missiles."
and then you states that"agility is only priority number two, it is still important enough for decision makers in the US and Russia to give up the advantage of having speed above mach 2.5"
so you are saying that priority no.1 has to be sacrificed to accommodate priority no. 2? wahhh... so logic laaa...
and then you said that you are not sure if dogfights can be performed at mach 2.5? hehehe...
you claimed that the size of any no-escape-zone also depends on the speed of the fighter. Not just the maximum range of their missiles. that means the greater the speed of the fighter + the greater the missile range = the greater no- escape-zone right? then, give me the list of kills made by any fighters using BVRAAM at speeds Mach 2.5 and above.
BTW, air to air kills made by..
AIM-9 Sidewinder 270 kills
AIM-7 Sparrow 81 (excluding kills made by Israelis and Iranians)
AIM-120 AMRAAM 12 kills |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #640 BotakChinPeng\ catat
ok. if that so, why
2 Serbian MiG 29 shot down by NATO's F-16s
1 Iraqi MiG 25 shot down by USAF F-16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #644 Debmey\ catat
huhuhu...
tetiba terselit satu posting sumbang
sori la, tak terperasan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #644 Debmey's post
|
ane..roti gardenia butterscotch ada? apasal tara bawak..tara muat basikal ka? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by alphawolf at 23-2-2009 08:02 AM 
By the word 'interim', do you mean the Legacy, or the Super?
The super.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/
Despite these problems, the F-18E/F has otherwise proven quite successful and is rapidly being deployed by the US Navy. Some 340 had been delivered by mid-2008 out of a total US Navy order of 493. US acquisition plans include 234 F-18E and 259 F-18F to replace the F-18A and F-14 by about 2010.
[ Last edited by BotakChinPeng at 23-2-2009 11:43 PM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by windof at 23-2-2009 09:03 AM
botak chin must be a fighter pelot, just wanna check with you regarding the passive stealthy aewc aircraft usage in the future, since it can be detected by the passive radar on the ground which will subsequently inform the position of the enemy passive stealthy aewc to friendly fighters nearby, what if the passive stealthy aewc operates outside the ground passive radar envelope?
I guess if the ground passive radar could hv a range of 800km, supposedly the airborne version might have a very much longer range, maybe double or tripple compared to the ground one?
Shouldn't ground based ones be more powerful because there is no physical constraints ?
[ Last edited by BotakChinPeng at 24-2-2009 12:34 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by tin at 23-2-2009 12:25 PM
ok. if that so, why
2 Serbian MiG 29 shot down by NATO's F-16s
1 Iraqi MiG 25 shot down by USAF F-16
Those migs had no long range heat seeking or anti radiation air to air missiles. They only carried radar guided missiles. That means when their radar is jammed, the greater no escape zone that you presumed they had was useless.
F-16s not only successfully jammed their mig opponents radars.They were also aided by powerful EW aircrafts such as the prowler, raven and wild weasel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #650 BotakChinPeng\ catat
Originally posted by BotakChinPeng at 23-2-2009 11:41 PM 
The F-22 top speed is still classified information.
please refer to your earlier post below.
Originally posted by BotakChinPeng at 23-2-2009 03:20 AM
Who told you F-22 maximum speed is not in the vicinity of mach 2.5 ?
now, the question is, If the F-22 top speed is still classified information, how do you know that it is in the vicinity of Mach 2.5 in the first place???
oh, BTW guess what?
US Congress passes $487.7 defence spending bill, slashes aircraft
The US Congress today passed defence spending bills slashing funds for the Lockheed Martin F-35 and Lockheed/AugstaWestland VH-71 presidential helicopter, and also left the Lockheed F-22 and Boeing C-17 production lines still in a state of programmatic purgatory.
A joint conference committee passed the $487.7 billion defense appropriations for fiscal 2009, marking a 6.1% increase over the FY08 budget but $4 billion less than the Bush Administration’s request.
The spending proposal, if enacted upon review by the White House, would strike two blows at the F-35 programme.
First, the bill would cut one aircraft each for the US Air Force and the US Navy from the FY09, reducing the overall count from 16 F-35s to 14.
Second, Congressional appropriators added language urging the USN to request funds in FY10 for signing a third multi-year procurement deal for Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, citing concerns about a fighter shortfall until F-35Cs are delivered.
http://www.flightglobal.com/arti ... ashes-aircraft.html
anddddd...
Concerning the development schedule for the F-35, a March 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the F-35 program states, “Three independent defense offices separately concluded that ... the [F-35 program] development schedule is likely to slip from 12 to 27 months.”
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22875.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by BotakChinPeng at 24-2-2009 12:13 AM
Those migs had no long range heat seeking or anti radiation air to air missiles. They only carried radar guided missiles. That means when their radar is jammed, the greater no escape zone that you presumed they had was useless.
F-16s not only successfully jammed their mig opponents radars.They were also aided by powerful EW aircrafts such as the prowler, raven and wild weasel.
How do you know the Serbian MiG-29 is not armed with R-27T or R-73?
another speculation eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #651 BotakChinPeng\ catat
and I am still waiting for the list of kills made by any fighters using BVRAAM at speeds Mach 2.5 and above  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so, dari hujah-hujah sekilan. nampaknya semua sudah konfius. ini bukan pasal ATM vs RRC tapi Botak sudah kalah dlm hujah hujah perang |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #658 nando's post
|
Haiyaaa nando... lu jual batuapi berapa ringgit satu kilo? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #652 BotakChinPeng's post
|
nop....with the nanotechlogy that malaysia has ventured into, no doubt the airbornne version will be more powerful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 23-2-2009 08:02 AM
Author
![[KUIZ PERUBATAN MINGGUAN VOL. 7]: Mudah aje, ilmu harian! VOL.7](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/ca/cafa22106bf87ee6a0ff6b0584fea8d8.jpg)
