Fighter jets - a few questions - Page 8 - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

Fighter planes - a few questions


mrsph666

Recommended Posts

  • תגובות 265
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

Prominent participants in the discussion

Prominent participants in the discussion

There are already radars that perceive stealth or pretend to be, even B2 is not completely invisible. It has a very small radar signature.

Do not forget that he does not break / swallow every AM fund otherwise he was invisible. ;) But only a certain frequency range. Just an amusing thing to know that the pilot's helmet is the majority The F117 radar signature, one of the things that broke the head when we designed the evaders is what material to make the glass and how to shape the cockpit to reduce it. : smile1:

The 117 DH was shot down over Bosnia by 1999.

By whom?

Link to content
Share on other sites

Where did you fool that MIG 29 was better than F-16 ??? It's really not like that and I can not really tell you how I know but the F-16 is much better than the 29 brand and it has proof.

As one who went through this Tharad and read what you wrote a pity you do not know the ME262 because it is the cornerstone of all the jetliners that exist today - if the Germans had completed its development properly they would not have lost, He and the Germans did not have enough time to solve this problem and that is what can be damaged on this plane. It is worth noting that the developers of this plane developed most of the jets at that time only that they developed them with the Russian and British Americans.

To all fans of the Saudi plane who claim to be better - the situation is really, but not the improvement in the clinic It is so huge that you simply can not explain how much the plane is going despite the "inferior" block compared to the Saudis. The one that is a little more beautiful in the cockpit does not mean that it is more efficient. The investment in avianics is better than the color screen. He will be bored with the pilots.

Except for the "flight" or "uninvited" flight, and for slightly more advanced electronic systems, the F16 is inferior in terms of its speed and weight.

The fact that he can do "barrel rolling" faster than the tag does not mean he can accelerate faster or climb faster and higher ... If I remember correctly (I do not have the strength to check ...) then the MiG service ceiling is higher in 15Kft than the service ceiling of F16, and its speed at these levels is significantly lower.

The maneuverability of the 29 MIG is similar to that of the F15 (the one designed for air superiority ... not the new ones that are a bit more cumbersome and designed mainly for bombing ...), and is more agile than F16 in sharp turns.

The F16 responds more quickly to the turn because of the side roll (the turn is made by rolling to the side of the plane and going up, with the direction up ...), but the corner of the turn is bluer, which is slowly rotating ...

Link to content
Share on other sites

Except for the "flight" or "uninvited" flight, and for slightly more advanced electronic systems, the F16 is inferior in terms of its speed and weight.

The fact that he can do "barrel rolling" faster than the tag does not mean he can accelerate faster or climb faster and higher ... If I remember correctly (I do not have the strength to check ...) then the MiG service ceiling is higher in 15Kft than the service ceiling of F16, and its speed at these levels is significantly lower.

The maneuverability of the 29 MIG is similar to that of the F15 (the one designed for air superiority ... not the new ones that are a bit more cumbersome and designed mainly for bombing ...), and is more agile than F16 in sharp turns.

The F16 responds more quickly to the turn because of the side roll (the turn is made by rolling to the side of the plane and going up, with the direction up ...), but the corner of the turn is bluer, which is slowly rotating ...

Climb higher Yes, accelerate They are more or less equal - your mistake is: F-16 systems are much but much more advanced and the switch has poor human engineering.

The maneuverability of the F-16 is no less than that of a plane whose radar has a smaller range. This is its main problem. Nothing else. Personally, I participated in deployments that were also F-14 and F-18 and tell you something. The F-16 In close air combat matches just made them school problem. It's a plane that locks you from 80 for about a mile and launches a missile like the F-14.

What is the MiG's premium on the F-16 is its vector pronunciation besides one panther and the MiG will no longer exist so there's nothing to talk about here.

I'm not watching air-to-air battles in the 20 years of battles that we'll be partnering with so that everything that's been said here is good on paper and not beyond.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Panther is a short-medium-range air-to-air missile, is not it?

In any case, such a missile and F16 will not be, so it does not make a comparison.

I agree that in close combat, if the planes do not collide for a short while (until the engine stops moving) F16 will have an advantage, but at medium distances, when you have to climb fast and make sharp turns and squeeze the engine for a relatively long time, I have no doubt that the switch will be preferable to the F16 .

From what I remember, the F16 was designed from the very beginning to provide a response to small, fast fighter jets (MiG 19, 21, 23 ...) that tore the asses of the relatively large and clumsy fighter planes that the Americans had in the sixties (but with a lot of firepower but no maneuvering ability) ... "flying citadels" called them if I'm not mistaken ...) then it would be only natural that in short ranges it would be better than Designed for aerial superiority and bombing ...

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

  • Popular now

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site