History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:39 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 305
Francis Urquhart wrote:
It's in. I put it in the USAAF section. Rates out at CW-21A = 66.78 and CW-21B = 72.32 which is in line with contemporaries. It's inferior to the P-40 and dramatically worse than the P-38 though which was the great hope of the USAAF fighter people when Curtiss-Wright were prosing the CW-21. That's probably why the US wasn't interested.


Thank you! I missed it!

_________________
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7613
Location: BM-9, BB-30
It's been (quite) awhile since I read up on them, but as I recall the CW-21 was actually proposed to the Navy.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:51 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11107
The Bushranger wrote:
It's been (quite) awhile since I read up on them, but as I recall the CW-21 was actually proposed to the Navy.

It's plausible; it falls between the last of the biplanes and first of the monoplanes so it may have looked attractive. Problem is its way inferior to both the F2A and the F4F.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:12 am
Posts: 312
Location: Alingsås, Sweden
There are three things I would like to mention:

* as has been pointed out, there are two entries for the J-29A. I presume that the second one is a misnomer for the J-29F. This, the final version, differed from the A in three main respects:
# modified, saw-toothed wing
# afterburning engine, raising peak power from 2 270 kp to 2 800 kp. This didn't do much for max speed (from 1 030 kmh to 1 060 kmh), but a lot for climb speed
# from 1963 the F carried two AIM-9B's

* the most numerous of the Draken variants, the J-35F, is missing

* returning to the grading question within the J-35 family with some updated details:
# the F could carry a combination of AIM-4C, AIM-26 and AIM-9P within a maximum of four, but not the AIM-9L. Usually it only carried two missiles, one IR and one SARH, to make space for drop tanks
# the final J version could carry both Falcon variants and AIM-9Ps, but not the AIM-9L. Usually four missiles (both IR and SARH) were carried along with two drop tanks (positions retaining wiring for missiles frem the F version but never used as such)
# the earlier D version could only carry AIM-9P's for a maxmum of four. Usually only two were carried to make room for drop tanks. It had two ADEN guns (the F and J had one).

Disregarding the more advanced radar and IR tracker of the F and J compared to the D, I still think a missile armament of two IR (9P) + two SARH on the J is significantly superior to two IR (9P) on the D.

Perhaps the grading of the JAS-39C warrants upgrading as this fighter should now has passed IOC for the Meteor long-distance hybrid-ramjet AAM...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5890
Location: Sweden
Now that the MS20 edition for the Gripen has begun rollout to combat units I was wondering if it'd be possible to incorporate the changes in future ranking versions?

I'm thinking that mainly the radar and EW system upgrades could be of interest.
Saab is claiming 80% extended a2a radar range at high altitude or alternatively that it can see a 0.4 m2 target at the same distance that the old version could see a 4 m2 target which I found a bit interesting.

Also interesting that it can now do Non-Cooperative Target Recognition via Jet Engine Modulation (don't ask me how that works) and that the EW system now has a Stand Off Jammer mode (that I can't find any further details on).

Some comments on MS20 by " GripenNews" (so not an impartial source but he has a good track record):
Quote:
Big improvements on Air to Air capability in new Gripen system version MS20 for 39C/D. Very big combined with METEOR.
This C/D radar upgrade enables significantly longer acquisition range at both high and low altitude. Increased low-RCS detectability.
Radar has improved operability in dense ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) environments. Better type classification, resolutions.
With it lower component costs, Better MTBF, shorter service time, intended to help drive operational costs down. MS20 out this year.
A2A improvements also w/ enhanced EMCON, NCTR, EWS (Electronic em control/silence, Non cooperative target recogn, Electronic Warfare)

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:37 pm
Posts: 549
An interesting bit of mythology-busting: The CF-105 Arrow is often touted as the highest-performing fighter of the time, and better, even, than many next-generation aircraft. But here it really looks like a dog compared to other types which first flew at about the same time (and even some which preceded it by a couple of years). Another nationalist fantasy punctured.

_________________
"Gotta say, doctor, your talent for alienatin' folk is near miraculous."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6473
Location: Cambs, UK
Philistine wrote:
An interesting bit of mythology-busting: The CF-105 Arrow is often touted as the highest-performing fighter of the time, and better, even, than many next-generation aircraft. But here it really looks like a dog compared to other types which first flew at about the same time (and even some which preceded it by a couple of years). Another nationalist fantasy punctured.


From Stuart's comments, the Arrow that was touted as the best, all-war-winning machine was the one that didn't actually fly. The data included in the ranking here is for the one that did. Let down by, as always when it comes to British/ Commonwealth types developed in the 50s/ 60s... cr@p missiles (cr@pper than the competition anyway), poor avionics and radar fit.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7613
Location: BM-9, BB-30
The Arrow Mk. 1 was also powered by the J75, while the first Orenda-powered Mk. 2 was only approaching taxi-test readiness when the programme was canned.

It's a two-sided coin: the cancellation means that the "downside" never got out to counterbalance the Manufacturer's Brochure Unicorns And Rainbows, but at least in this case, the "upside" never had a chance to actually be explored. And since (as it should be) Stuart's system here only counts ground-truthed data instead of the Unicorns And Rainbows, the Arrow-as-intended doesn't get ranked.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5890
Location: Sweden
Sorry to be annoying but I just realized we may have forgotten about a candidate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_Aero_Jaktfalken

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:49 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11107
Good catch! I'll try and get her in over the weekend.

###Alright; I did it and it comes out to a pretty creditable 42.24.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Last edited by Francis Urquhart on Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5890
Location: Sweden
Thanks!
Interesting, I guess it was okay for the time when it entered service then.

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Fighters Other, V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:46 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11107
The feeling I got reading the data was that it was a bit like the A6M2 in concept, underpowered but very light. It would probably have given a pretty good account of itself until the next generation of fighters turned up in the mid-1930s.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group