[flyXwire]

Nothing could be more 'asthetically pleasing' than this, mind you.

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

The British realized that the Bristol 170 Freighter was too ugly even by their standards, so sometime around the early 1960s they contracted with Aviation Traders to come up with a more asthetically pleasing replacement....

Ladies and Gentlemen: Aviation Traders proudly presents:

THE CARVAIR!!!

[jim]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Yes you have, the Spitfire for one. A face only a blind mother could love. Sorry couldn't resist!!
- Shawn

I think you need to try one of my pills Shawn. The only plane more beautifull than the Spit would have to be The Hawker Hunter.
The Rapture is an awesomw aeroplane but I like the good old dependable real live joystick. All this computor controlled stuff leaves me cold.
( I only put that last bit in so as to keep on topic being a reformed character etc).

[mustangdriver]

P-51 all the way.

[b-huj]

You guys are just proving me right...P-51? Carvair??

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Sorry folks but they are both Butt Ugly. They may handle great and can do many wonderful things. They are just fugly. The AF and Navy get way too much money for threats that dont exsist, yet the Army and Marine Corps continue to make due with next to nothing. When was the last time we didn't have total control of the air? And when was the last great US Naval battle? How about throwing some of that money back our way.
- Shawn

Did you read how the USAF F-15's lost embarrassingly to India's Su-35s in some exercises? Turn that into reality and you've lost control of the air hands down buddy.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Did you read how the USAF F-15's lost embarrassingly to India's Su-35s in some exercises? Turn that into reality and you've lost control of the air hands down buddy.

The results of an exercise in 2004 pitting USAF F-15 Eagles against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and even the older MiG-21 have been widely publicised, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions". Another report claims that the kind of systemic factors mentioned in the previous section were heavily weighted against the F-15s. According to this report, the F-15s were outnumbered 3-to-1 in some engagements. There have also been claims that the rules of the exercise allowed the Indian side the use of a simulated AWACS providing location information, and allowed them to use the full fire-and-forget active radar of simulated BVR missiles. The F-15s are claimed to have not been permitted to simulate the full range of the AIM-120 missile (restricted to 32–40 km when the full range for the AIM-120C is over 105km), and had to track the missiles all the way to the target.....such as the method used for the older AIM-7 Sparrow.....wihout using the fire-and-forget mode of the AIM-120. None of the F-15s were equipped with the latest AESA radars, which are fitted to some, but not all, of the USAF’s F-15 fleet.
It is worth noting that the USAF is currently lobbying hard for as large a complement as possible of the F-22 and evidence that present U.S. Air Force equipment is inferior to potential enemy fighters is a useful lobbying tool.
In June of 2005 a Eurofighter pilot was reportedly able, in a mock confrontation, to avoid two pursuing F-15E Fighter Bombers and out maneuver them to get into shooting position.
During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 reportedly proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles.
The Raptor claimed to have achieved a 108-to-0 kill ratio at that exercise.

[mustangdriver]

This reminds me of the true story that Bob Hoover told about the air expo in Russia. Two fighters were entered into a contest like this. One was the U.S. F-86 and the other was Russia's Mig 15. The F-86 won every contest. Yet the next day the Russian headlines said, "Russian Mig comes in second place in contest, while American fighter comes in next to last." Remember there were only two planes in the contest!

[Andrew]

Well its probably NOT worth noting that they didn't allow the AIM-120C at full range. The Aim-54 has been fired in anger twice and missed. can't remember the first reason but remember they blamed the second failure to the fact that it was operating on the missile's maximum range. And in terms of manufacturing, who knows, pit russia vs US and russia could probably put more on the field than the US can. It wouldn't be new to them thats for sure

[bsmith13]

Originally Posted by Andrew

The Aim-54 has been fired in anger twice and missed.

Twice by the US, anyway. The Iranians have shot tons of them.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by bsmith13

Twice by the US, anyway. The Iranians have shot tons of them.

... and apparently have hit quite a few times, although exact numbers are up to question.

As far as the AIM-120C "at full range," I won't get into it in detail but suffice to say that "full range" has many definitions depending on your assumptions. Typically, the max kinematic range is computed for a target that does not maneuver after launch, and instead keeps on the same heading/speed/altitude as it was when the missile was launched. If the target maneuvers in any way, that will likely shorten the effective range. Worst case is if the target turns exactly away from you and accelerates to max speed. The fire control computers on board modern aircraft obviously cannot predict what the target will do, so they make some assumptions and give you solutions based on those. There is such a range as a "no escape zone" which makes the worst case assumption and still figures the missile will hit. Finally, there are some assumptions about how much the missile might have to maneuver at end-game (presumably not much against a lumbering bomber, a lot more against a fighter executing a last-ditch escape maneuver).

Range also depends heavily on both launch aircraft and target altitudes, and launch aircraft speed (which is why the very same missile has more range on the F-22 shooting it at 1.7 Mach than an F-15 at 0.9 Mach).

And trust me, Andrew, it IS worth noting (that the F-15s were restricted as to missile firing ranges)... but the conclusions to draw are not easy. Too many variables.

FVD