RMAF F/A-18D vs RSAF F-16 Block 52
-
more photos........
-
The Su30MK is another development which has imporved air to ground capability. It is a truely multirole aircraft with either a very quick turn around time or is able to complete both air to air and air to ground missions in the one flight. Two additional under wing storage points were added to allow up to 12 stores to be carried. In the Su30MK the second seater takes the more traditional role of the weapons system operator while in the Su27UB and Su30 they are really a copilot.
A modified prototype of the Su30 was the first aircraft in the world to accellerate through the speed of sound vertically (up not down!). While other aircraft have been able to travell supersonic vertically none had perviously been able to acellerate to that extent (at least not reportedly). The Su30 was able to do this thanks to an increased amount of composites used in the airframe to save weight. -
su30 is a great plane but 2 mi is 2 big, engine n avoics wise in some sense is unique for the variants....
-
The SU-30 MK cockpit is also quite impressive.
-
F-18F cockpit
-
I personally feel that Russian cockpit is disgusting. At this age of glass cockpit, Sukhoi and MiG are still offering analogue cockpits with one or two digital displays. Yet they name them glass cockpits. They say those analogue features are a backup if the digital features are down. But why don't i see such things in western aircraft cockpits?
-
Originally posted by Pressure-Forward:
F-15 could accelerate to supersonics speeds while vertical long before our time in the 1970s... however this is subjective... give any plane a combat load and see if they can even think of doing such a thing. Your plane is only as good as the tricks it can do while lugging its weapons and fuel. The russian cobra and quick turns manuver looks cool and good on paper (and they even have cute computer animations of their planes doing that and shooting down wester planes), but it can only be done when the plane is fitted without any weapons and on a minimal fuel load... These tricks for air show stunts... and it's no wonder malaysia, given their penchant for flashy things, would go for something like that... and spend millions just to maintain a small force of such fighters...
The Su30MK is another development which has [b]imporved air to ground capability. It is a truely multirole aircraft with either a very quick turn around time or is able to complete both air to air and air to ground missions in the one flight. Two additional under wing storage points were added to allow up to 12 stores to be carried. In the Su30MK the second seater takes the more traditional role of the weapons system operator while in the Su27UB and Su30 they are really a copilot.
A modified prototype of the Su30 was the first aircraft in the world to accellerate through the speed of sound vertically (up not down!). While other aircraft have been able to travell supersonic vertically none had perviously been able to acellerate to that extent (at least not reportedly). The Su30 was able to do this thanks to an increased amount of composites used in the airframe to save weight.
[/b] -
Whoa! What happen to this threat...must have miss something!! I Better rewind back and check was going on
-
subjective meh? the F-15's engines could do that with a full load of AAM's and 1 extra fuel tank....not sure about with AGM's and bombs thoughOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:F-15 could accelerate to supersonics speeds while vertical long before our time in the 1970s... however this is subjective... give any plane a combat load and see if they can even think of doing such a thing. Your plane is only as good as the tricks it can do while lugging its weapons and fuel. The russian cobra and quick turns manuver looks cool and good on paper (and they even have cute computer animations of their planes doing that and shooting down wester planes), but it can only be done when the plane is fitted without any weapons and on a minimal fuel load... These tricks for air show stunts... and it's no wonder malaysia, given their penchant for flashy things, would go for something like that... and spend millions just to maintain a small force of such fighters... -
The Su-27 and SU-30 were designed to shoot down the F-15s... If i am wrong.... pls correct me..
-
correctOriginally posted by Moonstriker:The Su-27 and SU-30 were designed to shoot down the F-15s... If i am wrong.... pls correct me.. -
and the eurofighter was designed to defeat the su 27,30.so dous it mean tt it can beat the f15?Originally posted by duotiga83:correct -
in a way......can say yes.....Originally posted by CenturionMBT:and the eurofighter was designed to defeat the su 27,30.so dous it mean tt it can beat the f15? -
someone always comes out something else new to defeat past developments... heh... neverending...
-
technology is always improving...there is no way to say which is realli gd or bad anyway......Originally posted by Moonstriker:someone always comes out something else new to defeat past developments... heh... neverending... -
i wonder ...if falcons r so sucky...y japan chose falcon airframe as a replacement for their F-1 a/c?
and rename n enlarge the foreplanes as F-2
juz a food for thought
-
Here is part of an article which will answer your question :
"In 1982, the Japanese government announced that they were seeking a new warplane to succeed the Mitsubishi F-1 fighter support aircraft. This led to a project known as the Next Fighter Support Aircraft, or FS-X. The Japanese government contacted several foreign aircraft manufacturers to see if existing types could meet the FS-X requirement. At the same time, the indigenous Japanese aircraft industry was approached to see if it were practical for them to come up with a solution. Very rapidly, the contenders narrowed down to the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the F/A-18 Hornet, the Panavia Tornado IDS, and a possible indigenous aircraft. An important requirement was the use of a Japanese-built datalink system and the ability to carry the ASM-1 antiship missile.
The formal requirement was issued on November 22, 1985. The aircraft was to have the ability to carry up to four antiship missiles. In addition, the aircraft had to be able to carry 2-4 short-range AAMs and 2-4 medium- range AAMs, although not necessarily at the same time as the antiship missiles were being carried. An important requirement was a minimum combat radius of 450 nautical miles.
After looking over the responses, the Japanese Defense Agency concluded that no existing aircraft was able to meet these requirements. Only an indigenously-developed aircraft would do. The three foreign contenders complained bitterly about being ruled out in favor of an as-yet-nonexistent paper design. In addition, US and European governments became involved because of the large trade inbalances that existed between Japan and the economies of the USA and Europe, and they pressured the Japanese government for a reconsideration. As a result of the controversy, in April of 1986 the Japanese Defense Agency reissued its request, and all three foreign contenders issued revised proposals.
The question now came down to whether a co-development of an existing foreign aircraft would be selected, or if an entirely indigenous aircraft would have to be developed from scratch. The choice of an entirely new indigenous design would of course have pleased the Japanese aviation industry, but the cost would have been quite high and the project might be subject to lengthy delays due to the need to start from scratch. If a foreign design were selected instead, a considerable Japanese contribution to the project would be required. The Tornado development was eliminated at an early stage because of vague and unspecified concerns about a co-development project with European aircraft industries being somehow incompatible with Japanese security concerns. The revised F/A-18 was dropped soon thereafter because of its high cost. On September 11, 1987, it was announced that the choice had narrowed down to an indigenous aircraft, or a development of the F-15 or F-16.
On October 21, 1987, the Japanese government announced that it had ruled out the solely indigenous option, and that it had selected a development of the F-16C/D as the choice for the FS-X. The decision was undoubtedly due to a lot of pressure from the US government. The deal was also rather controversial in the USA at the time, with critics charging that the US was giving away too much technology to a competitor. Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) announced plans to acquire as many as 130 FS-Xs to replace the Mitsubishi F-1 fighter bomber.
The prime contractor for the FS-X was Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, in collaboration with General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin). Fuji Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries were important subcontractors. It was agreed that 60 percent of the work would be done in Japan, with the remaining 40 percent of the work being done by American industries.
Mitsubshi was assigned the responsibility for the forward fuselage and for all final assembly, with Kawasaki supplying the central fuselage, the landing gear doors, and the engine access doors. Fuji is responsible for the radome, the air intake, the starboard wing (except for the leading edge flaps), wing root fairings, the starboard wing flaperon, vertical tail surface and horizontal tail surface. General Dynamics (later Lockheed Martin) was given the port wing (with the exception of the flaperon), the starboard wing leading edge flaps, and the rear fuselage. " -
thanks...greatly appreciated...
-
Just wondering: For How long do the Japs intend to operate the F-2s and the F-15s? I think if other countries in the region are buying or considering 4th gen stuff, the japs won't wanna rest on their laurels with 3rd gen stuff. . . they are the most powerful ones in asia ( except MAYBE China) and will wanna keep it that way
Also heard there was same problem with cracks in the wing with the F-2 at first before it was introduced. . .