Page 3 of 3
Posted: 2002-11-14 12:18am
by Howedar
Vympel wrote:Howedar wrote:Vympel wrote:
*picturing culture mind piloted aircraft ....*
Anyway, it depends on what the F-16 is armed with. If the fight gets within visual range and the F-16 is armed with older generation AIM-9s, and not the new AIM-9X, if the MiG-21 snaps off an R-73 with a helmet-moutned sight off boresight shot, it's dead. This is what would happen in a fight between India and Pakistan- the only realistic MiG-21 versus F-16 scenario.
You're giving the MiG-21 medium range missiles, and the F-16 short range ones. Of course the aircraft with the longer range weapons is going to win.
Thing is, thats the F-16.
No, the R-73 is a WVR missile, just like the AIM-9 (though the latest marks of the R-73- the R-73M2, has a far superior seeker/FOV as well as a kinematic range of 40km). You were mentioning that an F-16 turns faster than a MiG-21, so naturally I assumed you were talking about a dogfight. No F-16 will ever fight a MiG-21 though (unless the Israelis have done it ...). The MiG-21 has served for a long time, but it's time is now up.
FAS suggests a range of 40km for the R-73
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... /aa-11.htm
I have no reason to believe they're wrong.
AIM-9L 'winders have a range of much less than that.
Posted: 2002-11-14 12:48am
by TrailerParkJawa
If the Air Force doesnt want the A-10's anymore divy them up between the Army and Marines. They would make good use of them.
Posted: 2002-11-14 01:08am
by Sea Skimmer
Howedar wrote:Vympel wrote:Howedar wrote:You're giving the MiG-21 medium range missiles, and the F-16 short range ones. Of course the aircraft with the longer range weapons is going to win.
Thing is, thats the F-16.
No, the R-73 is a WVR missile, just like the AIM-9 (though the latest marks of the R-73- the R-73M2, has a far superior seeker/FOV as well as a kinematic range of 40km). You were mentioning that an F-16 turns faster than a MiG-21, so naturally I assumed you were talking about a dogfight. No F-16 will ever fight a MiG-21 though (unless the Israelis have done it ...). The MiG-21 has served for a long time, but it's time is now up.
FAS suggests a range of 40km for the R-73
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... /aa-11.htm
I have no reason to believe they're wrong.
AIM-9L 'winders have a range of much less than that.
40 kilometers is the ballistic range. The missile can't acquire anything at that range and certainly could not hit anything. Its effective range is something like 20 kilometers.
Posted: 2002-11-14 12:30pm
by phongn
TrailerParkJawa wrote:If the Air Force doesnt want the A-10's anymore divy them up between the Army and Marines. They would make good use of them.
The Marines are unlikely to use them - they need carrier-based aircraft.
Posted: 2002-11-14 01:18pm
by TrailerParkJawa
The Marines are unlikely to use them - they need carrier-based aircraft.
hmm. forgot about the tail hook issue.
Posted: 2002-11-14 01:21pm
by Beowulf
TrailerParkJawa wrote:The Marines are unlikely to use them - they need carrier-based aircraft.
hmm. forgot about the tail hook issue.
It's more the 0-200 knots in 40 yards and 200-0 knots in 20 yards problems...
Posted: 2002-11-14 01:54pm
by MKSheppard
phongn wrote:
The Marines are unlikely to use them - they need carrier-based aircraft.
Actually I can see the Marines using A-10s as forward deployed CAS, IE
they're there a day or two after the Marines land and sieze an airfield...
Posted: 2002-11-15 02:06pm
by CmdrWilkens
phongn wrote:CmdrWilkens wrote:36 F-14E
24 F/A-18E
24 A-6F
6 S-3
3 EA-6B
3 KA-6D
3 E-2C
Um, Greg - that's nearly 100 aircraft. The CVs are designed for something like 87, and that includes the SH-60B/Fs.
Bah trouble me not with thy doubting numbers, besides with proper plannign you can take over 100 oboard thoguh I'd jsut bring along an ARG with my CVBG so I'd have the full combat package available in one formaiton. Oh yeah and a /Wasp/-class would give me enough deck space for copters.
Posted: 2002-11-15 02:09pm
by CmdrWilkens
phongn wrote:TrailerParkJawa wrote:If the Air Force doesnt want the A-10's anymore divy them up between the Army and Marines. They would make good use of them.
The Marines are unlikely to use them - they need carrier-based aircraft.
I'm unsure about the ability of the A-10 to survive being catapulted but it has a rugged enough airframe to survive the abuse AND it has a relatively low stall speed to the catapults might be able to launch one, though I think the weight issue could be problematic for arrestign them. 'Course with the possible advent of /Sea Base/ it would become a non-issue.
Posted: 2002-11-15 02:50pm
by Sea Skimmer
CmdrWilkens wrote:phongn wrote:CmdrWilkens wrote:36 F-14E
24 F/A-18E
24 A-6F
6 S-3
3 EA-6B
3 KA-6D
3 E-2C
Um, Greg - that's nearly 100 aircraft. The CVs are designed for something like 87, and that includes the SH-60B/Fs.
Bah trouble me not with thy doubting numbers, besides with proper plannign you can take over 100 oboard thoguh I'd jsut bring along an ARG with my CVBG so I'd have the full combat package available in one formaiton. Oh yeah and a /Wasp/-class would give me enough deck space for copters.
I believe The improved Nimitze has embarked up to 102 aircraft in some cases while still conducting flight operations. However the overload makes things a pain. Forget the Wasp though, just bring along another fleet carrier.
