Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) I hope Iran buys a bunch. Mig 35 that is.... haven't looked at the stats, but what's so different about the Mig 35 vs the standard Mig 29? The Mig-35 is basically the Mig29M1/M2/OVT/MRCA. I think they renamed it to Mig-35 for better marketing. Sounds more valuable/advanced if its a Mig3x instead of a Mig2x I suppose. Its got full 3D thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire and new avionics compared to the earlier Mig-29. edit: The extra lumps bring to mind the Bf-109 G series. Edited February 8, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 The Mig-35 is basically the Mig29M1/M2/OVT/MRCA. I think they renamed it to Mig-35 for better marketing. Sounds more valuable/advanced if its a Mig3x instead of a Mig2x I suppose. Its got full 3D thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire and new avionics compared to the earlier Mig-29. edit: The extra lumps bring to mind the Bf-109 G series. Will it be more capable than the MIG-29K/MIG-33 that India is getting? I heard that was more likened to a navalized MIG-29M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Will it be more capable than the MIG-29K/MIG-33 that India is getting? I heard that was more likened to a navalized MIG-29M Other then the 3D thrust vectoring, I have no idea how the avionics differ. Supposedly, the K is just an M with reinforcements for carrier ops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.V. Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Will it be more capable than the MIG-29K/MIG-33 that India is getting? I heard that was more likened to a navalized MIG-29M They'll be pretty similar. They're both based on the earlier K and M series and have certain structural and systems commonalities. Infact, the commonality is one of the selling points for the MiG-35, since India is already slated to operate the MiG-33. They're as much alike as the basic Su-27 and the Su-33 (Su-27K) are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share Posted February 9, 2007 So much aviation humor, yet it rarely shows up in this thread. That said: The different takeoff procedures of military aviators --------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval Aviator: On a carrier, the Naval Aviator looks over at the Catapult Officer ("Shooter") who gives the run up engines signal by rotating his finger above his head.. The pilot pushes the throttle forward, verifies all flight controls are operational, checks all gauges, and gives the Cat officer a brisk salute, continuing the Navy / Marine tradition of asking permission to leave the ship. The Cat officer drops to one knee while swooping his arm forward and pointing down deck, granting that permission. The pilot is immediately catapulted and becomes airborne. Air Force Pilot: We've all seen Air Force pilots at the air force base look up just before taxiing for takeoff and the ground crew waits until the pilot's thumb is sticking straight up. The crew chief then confirms that he sees the thumb, salutes, and the Air Force pilot then takes off. This time-tested tradition is the last link in the Air Force safety net to confirm that the pilot does not have his thumb up his ass. Army Aviator: If you've ever seen an Army helicopter pilot preparing for takeoff, you will note that the pilot gives the ground guy a thumbs up before he is given hover and takeoff signals. There are two theories about the origin of this gesture. One is that it is to show that the pilot has identified which of his fingers is the thumb so that he will be able to properly operate his controls. The most compelling theory says that this is to show the ground crewman that the pilot indeed knows which direction is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share Posted February 9, 2007 Australia seems close to getting Super Hornets. 24 F-models for delivery 2009/2010----to fill in the gap in strike capability between the retirement of the F-111, and the delayed arrival of the F-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mislovrit Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 What is the status on the Legacy Hornets, it there any future of upgrades or are they at a deadend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 As far as the Marine Corps goes, the A-D Hornets and Harriers will be replaced by the JSF. They still get modifications / upgrades, even though the "successor have been named." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share Posted February 9, 2007 The A can be upgraded to the A+, which actually makes it the best of the Legacy Hornets according to some. Avionics of the latest-version C, but lower weight, and the latest engines means it has the best avionics+best thrust/weight ratio. The US was quite late in switching over to the better engines, so not many USN C-models have them. But the A's engines are getting old, so they need new ones--so they get the latest version. Basically--while your average C model has the original avionics, plus dozens of new little black boxes stuffed in every cavity they can find with not an inch to spare--the A+ model basically has "every upgrade the C model ever had" in a single box. While it was originally believed the A+ could be easily identified by the IFF bird slicers on the nose, VFA-201's A+'s do not have them. Might be the only squadron like that, or they had an "incomplete" upgrade. A big part of the reason for the A+ program is that the C models are actually getting old---due to so many combat ops in recent years, many of the C models are running out of trap-life----carrier traps are far harder on a plane than flying hours. But with so many of the A's sent to the reserves at a relatively young age due to the introduction of the C model--they may have more hours than the C's, but far fewer carrier landings. And so they're thinking about converting even more A's to A+'s, and using them to replace some C models. Very few C-model squadrons are getting E models, the few that are generally have very late-model C's that will get passed down to the not-so-late C squadrons, and the oldest C squadrons will get the A+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 More Mig-35 photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 More Mig-35 photo. Very nice! (The airplane ain't half bad, either.) They really cleaned up the chunky proportions of the Mig-29 with this version! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I love Brunettes but I'm diggin' the Blonde. The jet's beautiful, too, BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 They must have had a good laugh over this. http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva25bomb/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 History Channel is having a Dogfights marathon today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 The A can be upgraded to the A+, which actually makes it the best of the Legacy Hornets according to some. Avionics of the latest-version C, but lower weight, and the latest engines means it has the best avionics+best thrust/weight ratio. The US was quite late in switching over to the better engines, so not many USN C-models have them. But the A's engines are getting old, so they need new ones--so they get the latest version. Basically--while your average C model has the original avionics, plus dozens of new little black boxes stuffed in every cavity they can find with not an inch to spare--the A+ model basically has "every upgrade the C model ever had" in a single box. While it was originally believed the A+ could be easily identified by the IFF bird slicers on the nose, VFA-201's A+'s do not have them. Might be the only squadron like that, or they had an "incomplete" upgrade. A big part of the reason for the A+ program is that the C models are actually getting old---due to so many combat ops in recent years, many of the C models are running out of trap-life----carrier traps are far harder on a plane than flying hours. But with so many of the A's sent to the reserves at a relatively young age due to the introduction of the C model--they may have more hours than the C's, but far fewer carrier landings. And so they're thinking about converting even more A's to A+'s, and using them to replace some C models. Very few C-model squadrons are getting E models, the few that are generally have very late-model C's that will get passed down to the not-so-late C squadrons, and the oldest C squadrons will get the A+. Also (if Mislovrit was asking specifically about RAAF legacy Hornets) the RAAF put it's F/A-18As through a similar programme which IIRC was called HUG (Hornet UpGrade). It's broadly similar to an F/A-18A+ but with some added structural strengthening and ASRAAM support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Oooh, ASRAAM's on a Hornet. Can they work with Sidewinder rails, or what? Surely they can use the LAU-115 as a parent pylon to do dual-rails for the ASRAAM. Any more specs of the HUG programme? Did it get the new engines? Because if those are the originals, they're probably down to 15,000lbs or worse now. (Hornet engines are weird--they are designed to reference throttle position to EGT to the exclusion of all else, for long life and to keep maintenance intervals the same throughout its life---so as they age, the RPM's and thrust gradually decrease compared to the EGT--so 100% throttle gives a little less thrust every day) I know of at least one occurance of someone demanding new engines for their "used" Hornet purchase, due to the whole "loss of thrust as it ages" issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'm pretty sure the ASRAAM was designed to use the exact same rails as the Sidewinder so I don't think there's any need for different rails. Here's a good rundown of the HUG program. I'm not seeing any engine upgrades, just structural and avionics, I could have sworn I read about the RAAF buying new engines too, though it may not have been part of the HUG program. There's some good shots of ASRAAMs mounted on RAAF Hornets here. I'm sure more can be found at places like airliners.net but I'm at work so I don't have a lot of time to look them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Wow, production F-35's are really bumpy underneath. Some of that have to be the "JDAM bulges" but it looks like we have gear bulges, and AMRAAM bulges, and flap actuator bulges, and everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Speaking of which, I find that nowadays, everything is so streamlined and budgy and bumpy here and there, there's really no "sexy" planes anymore. Nothing like the simple brutality of the F4U Corsair, or the ride-the-rocket of the F4 Phantom II, or the rarin'-to-go of the F-14 Tomcat, or even the big-badness of the Flankers. Just sleek lines and bumps and budges nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Speaking of which, I find that nowadays, everything is so streamlined and budgy and bumpy here and there, there's really no "sexy" planes anymore. Nothing like the simple brutality of the F4U Corsair, or the ride-the-rocket of the F4 Phantom II, or the rarin'-to-go of the F-14 Tomcat, or even the big-badness of the Flankers. Just sleek lines and bumps and budges nowadays. Well, technically you can't have streamlined and bumpy in 1 package. But if you are talking about bits sticking or protruding out all over the place (like in the Mig-35 earlier) then yes, thats how it goes. The F-22 doesn't seem to have too many 'bumps' yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loner Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Found this at 4chan. A Rafael landing on a U.S. Carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Found this at 4chan. A Rafael landing on a U.S. Carrier. Blasphemy... Ike is rolling over in his grave right now... mainly because he is not a class of tank (Patton, Sherman, etc), but seconded to a class of carrier named after a squid admiral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) Cool picture since it's definitely not an everyday thing! The pilot can add to his bragging rights on also having a trap on one of the USN's big, honkin' carriers. Edit to add: He doesn't have his tailhook down on this one though, so it's not a "trap" for this picture, just a touch and go. Edited February 15, 2007 by Warmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mislovrit Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Also (if Mislovrit was asking specifically about RAAF legacy Hornets) the RAAF put it's F/A-18As through a similar programme which IIRC was called HUG (Hornet UpGrade). It's broadly similar to an F/A-18A+ but with some added structural strengthening and ASRAAM support. Actually I was more interested if production of the Legacy Hornets would continue or would it be a dead bug once all of the serving Hornets run out of hours. Same question for the single seat F-15s as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Legacy Hornet stopped production when the first Super Hornet was built. There was no overlap in production. Went right from one to the other. AFAIK, single-seat F-15 is dead. You can still order an air-to-air optimized F-15 instead of a Strike Eagle, but it'll have 2 seats. The F-15S order was originally going to be split between strike and air-optimized versions, but ended up as all-strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 You will never, except in extreme circumstances, see any foreign aircraft actually land on a US carrier. They can do touch and goes to their hearts content so long as the ship allows it but to actually trap, nope. The main reason for this is that unless it is an american built plane it probably does not use the same carrier launch hardware. The Rafale might, but earlier Dassault carrier birds used that launch strap instead of a launch bar and no carrier maintains them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Found this at 4chan. A Rafael landing on a U.S. Carrier. This picture doesn't looked photoshopped to anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_foul_fowl Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thought so, but a search on the Internet revealed the pic was taken from one of the combined fleet practices back in 2005 http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18516 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thought so, but a search on the Internet revealed the pic was taken from one of the combined fleet practices back in 2005 http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18516 If you hadn't found the website I wouldn't have believed it. The Rafale, looks like it was cut and pasted on there...someone was having a bad camera day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 More interesting is when Argentina practices with their Entendards, plenty of pics of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thought so, but a search on the Internet revealed the pic was taken from one of the combined fleet practices back in 2005 http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18516 2005? Jeez, we're slacking over here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loner Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thought so, but a search on the Internet revealed the pic was taken from one of the combined fleet practices back in 2005 http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18516 Sweet, downloaded the hi-res. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 You will never, except in extreme circumstances, see any foreign aircraft actually land on a US carrier. They can do touch and goes to their hearts content so long as the ship allows it but to actually trap, nope. The main reason for this is that unless it is an american built plane it probably does not use the same carrier launch hardware. The Rafale might, but earlier Dassault carrier birds used that launch strap instead of a launch bar and no carrier maintains them. I believe the Rafale has a launch bar specifically so that it can cross deck with US carriers, though I'm having a batty of a time finding a photo to illustrate this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Not that I disbelieve it but _that_ pic really looks photoshopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Tiny pic, but this looks like a launch bar (in the horizontal position): http://img.search.com/thumb/b/b8/FS_CdG_Ra..._CdG_Rafale.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts