-Nem alkalmazunk jelzős szerkezetet. Még arra se, akivel nagyon nem értesz egyet.
-Nem gyűlölködünk!
-HADITECHNIKAI TOPIC, aki nem tudja értelmezni, az megy máshova!
[Légi Harcászati / Légvédelmi FAQ]
-
#84100
link
Tactically, the A-4’s performance was very similar to the MiG-17, although not quite as good. In the mid ‘80s, the MiG-17 was definitely no longer a front line Soviet fighter, but it was still operational in many third world countries that we considered threats. The same things could be said for our F-5s that simulated MiG-21s, although there were large numbers of the ‘21s still operational in the world at that time.
The F-5 could also simulate the MiG-23 if it stayed fast and made large arcing turns, and the ‘23 was operational all over the world. However, neither the A-4 or F-5 could properly simulate the fourth generation threats (Mig-29, Su-27 etc). The beauty of the F-16N was that it could simulate all of these threats well if flown properly by the adversary pilot. To simulate the MiG-17 or a similar threat, we simply flew the F-16 full up, except we never used the afterburner. To simulate the MiG-21, we flew it full up, except we would select more than zone two (zone five being the max) afterburner. To simulate the MiG-23 we flew the F-16N at the speed of heat and made no turns greater than about four G. On top of that, we could simulate the fourth generation Soviet fighters, the SU 27 and MIG 29, if we flew it full up, full burner and at any speed.
I think that the arrival of the F-16N finally brought Naval Aviation to the reality that we had truly entered into the fourth generation threat arena.
Utoljára szerkesztette: Hpasp, 2017.08.28. 20:59:09