Кфир С2 vs Мираж Ф1

#42
А причем тут J-79? Напомню два факта - в конце шестидесятых британцы ещё вполне делали свои истребители, и даже когда купили у США Фантом - оснастили его своими двигателями.
Пардон. спутал с Роллс-Ройс «Спей».
http://aviamir.info/dassault-mirage-iii/
, оснащенный ТРДД Роллс-Ройс «Спей», и предназначавшийся для Королевских ВВС Великобритании. Этот вариант всерьез рассматривался английским правительством, но чаша весов склонилась в пользу американского «Фантома»;
 
#44
Ну тогда приведи цитату, где
это написано.
Когда группа американских самолетов подошла к Морин (35 км северо-западнее Кюстрин), в это время над районом Морин находились в воздухе 6 советских истребителей Як-3. Советские летчики, заметив немецкие истребители, преследовавшие американцев, атаковали немцев, но сами в свою очередь были атакованы американскими истребителями.
Весь прикол цитаты заключается в том, что в ходе этой миссии 359FG столкновений в воздухе с немцами не имела.
PS. превкушая вопрос "дайте ссылку на 359FG", рекомендую выделить текст и спросить у Гугла самостоятельно,- Гугл один на всех, у нищих слуг нет, история американских авиагрупп расписана по дням в открытом доступе.
 
Последнее редактирование:
#45
Я читал, что со слов американских пилотов Ф-14, принявших участие в воздушных боях с ливийцами, ливийские Миражи Ф1 проявили себя лучше, чем ливийские МиГ-23.

Также в книге об Ирано-Иракской войне, правда со слов иракских летчиков, их Миражи Ф1 неплохо проявили себя в боях с иранскими Ф-14, хотя у Ф-14 было большое техническое превосходство.

Опять же, если вспомнить испытания F-5E в СССР, то он там выиграл учебные бои не только у МиГ-21, но и у МиГ-23.

И потом, фюзеляж и крылья Кфира - это несколько модифицированный фюзеляж и крылья Миража 3С (или можно сказать Миража 5) - предшественника Миража Ф1, а двигатель Фантома (J79), стоявший на нем, вообще 50-х годов разработки. Так что особой новизны в конструкции Кфира не было. Разве что ПГО, но оно было введено отнюдь не от хорошей жизни. Оно помогло компенсировать проблему, вызванную смещением центра тяжести самолета из-за более тяжелого двигателя J79 по сравнению с родным Атаром Миража.
Думаю что единственная из летных характеристик вкорой Кфир превосходит мираж это тяговоруженность
 
#47
http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/miragf1.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/dagger.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/kfirc1.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/kfirc2.html
-----------------------------------------Mirage F1-----------Kfir C2
  • Wingspan: .............................................8.4 m.......................8.22 m
  • Wing area: ............................................25 m2.....................34.8 m2
  • Empty weight: .................................7,400 kg...................7,285 kg
  • Gross weight: .................................10,900 kg................11,603 kg
  • Max takeoff weight: ...................16,200 kg................16,200 kg
  • Powerplant: 49.03 kN thrust dry....................................52.9 kN
  • 70.6 kN with afterburner...................................................79.62 kN
  • Maximum speed: ...........................Mach 2.2...................Mach 2
  • Combat range: ...................................425 km....................768 km
  • hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg bombs...............hi-lo-hi profile, seven 227 kg, two 1,030 kg drop tanks
  • Service ceiling: ................................20,000 m...................17,680 m
  • Rate of climb: .....................................243 m/s....................233 m/s
Резюме: Kfir C2 превосходит Mirage F1 по маневренным характеристикам - при практически том же размахе крыла его площадь больше на 40% и тяговооружённость больше на 6%.
в одной книжке про дизайн истребителей в качестве примера проблем большой дельты приводилось улучшение маневренных характеристик при переходе от Mirage III к Mirage F1. так что по маневренным характеристикам F1 лучше кфира
 
#48
- А то, что у Кфира на 40% меньше удельная нагрузка на крыло - это не характеристика?!
нет. удлиннение - меньше. а в формулу индуктивного сопротивления они входят вместе. не известен ни один истребитель с большой дельтой, у которого бы была более высока устоявшаяся скорость, чем у традиционных аналогов. так же рекомендую сравнить скорости разворота F-16 vs F-16XL, все цифры есть в открытых источниках
 
#49
- А то, что у Кфира на 40% меньше удельная нагрузка на крыло - это не характеристика?!
При меньшей тяговоруженности Ф1 имеет большю максимальную скорость у земли. 1470 против 1330 у Кфира.И даже большую скороподъемность. Это значит что у Ф1 более лучшая аэродинамика. В принципе важна не сама тяговооруженность а разница между распологаемой и потребной тягой. Смотрим кривые Жуковского. Самолет с большим Сх тратит болше тяги имеет болшую потребную тягу.
Ксати большую скорость у земли имеет только Ф22.
Такая же история при сравнении Миража3 и Миг21Ф13. 1300 против 1100.
 
#52
в одной книжке про дизайн истребителей в качестве примера проблем большой дельты приводилось улучшение маневренных характеристик при переходе от Mirage III к Mirage F1. так что по маневренным характеристикам F1 лучше кфира
- За счёт чего? Если удельная нагрузка на крыло у Кфира меньше на 40%, а тяговооружённость больше на 6%? При равном размахе крыла?
Так не бывает.
 
#54
- За счёт чего? Если удельная нагрузка на крыло у Кфира меньше на 40%, а тяговооружённость больше на 6%? При равном размахе крыла?
Так не бывает.
за счет того, что и F-16XL сливал F-16му. меньшее удлиннение крыла, большее сопротивление...
 
#55
Такая же история при сравнении Миража3 и Миг21Ф13. 1300 против 1100.
9 июня 1959 г. Ж. Мюселли на Мираж IIIустановил рекорд скорости по замкнутому 100-км маршруту - 1785 км/ч
1960 году К.К. Коккинаки на МиГ-21 Ф-13 установил мировой рекорд скорости 2148,66 км/ч на замкнутом маршруте протяженностью 100 км.
Как видно из достигнутых скоростей МиГ имел подавляющее превосходство над Миражом.
 
#56
9 июня 1959 г. Ж. Мюселли на Мираж IIIустановил рекорд скорости по замкнутому 100-км маршруту - 1785 км/ч
1960 году К.К. Коккинаки на МиГ-21 Ф-13 установил мировой рекорд скорости 2148,66 км/ч на замкнутом маршруте протяженностью 100 км.
Как видно из достигнутых скоростей МиГ имел подавляющее превосходство над Миражом.
http://www.razlib.ru/tehnicheskie_nauki/sverhzvukovye_samolety/p43.php
Установлению рекорда предшествует тщательная подготовка пилота и самого самолета; кроме того, разрабатывается тактика полета, производится расчет оптимальных параметров и т. д. В качестве примера, иллюстрирующего результаты такой подготовки, можно привести описание рекордного полета, который в 1959 г. был выполнен на самолете «Мираж» III А-03

по замкнутой 100-километровой траектории. Подготовленный к полету самолет имел нормальную взлетную массу с полными топливными баками и снятым стартовым ракетным ускорителем. Взлет, разгон и достижение расчетной высоты, а также вираж с отходом на расстояние 75 км для выхода на трассу были произведены без включения форсажной камеры двигателя. Скорость самолета на вираже соответствовала 0,95 М. Затем был включен форсаж и в течение 3 мин на отрезке 80 км самолет был разогнан до скорости 2,06 М. Над измерительной базой самолет набрал высоту 11 280 м, пролетел по прямой, сделал вираж с постоянной перегрузкой в 2,7 и закончил повторный контрольный полет над измерительной базой на высоте 11700 м со скоростью 2,1 М. Траектория полета проходила через 4 контрольных пункта, расположенных в виде ромба. На пунктах измерялись высота, координаты и время прохождения самолета. Замкнутую траекторию полета длиной 115 км самолет пролетел за 3,55 мин со средней скоростью 2050 км/ч, что для основной 100-километровой трассы составило рекордную скорость 1771 км/ч.
9 июня 1959 г. Ж. Мюселли установил рекорд скорости по замкнутому 100-км маршруту - 1785 км/ч (по другим данным - 1771 км/ч). 20 февраля 1960 г. другая машина (летчик - Жан-Мари Саже) достигла динамического потолка 25500 м с включенным ЖРД. Кроме того, "Мираж" III А разгоняли до числа М=2,2 на высоте 15250 м.
вообщето скорость на высоте это несколько отличное от скорости у земли.
 
#57
Весь прикол цитаты заключается в том, что в ходе этой миссии 359FG столкновений в воздухе с немцами не имела.
PS. превкушая вопрос "дайте ссылку на 359FG", рекомендую выделить текст и спросить у Гугла самостоятельно,- Гугл один на всех, у нищих слуг нет, история американских авиагрупп расписана по дням в открытом доступе.
То есть советские истребители приняли "Мустанги" за немцев и напали?
 
#58
Возможно это будет интересно прочитать тем, кого интересует эта тема. Некоторые считают, что более мощный двигатель J79 не дал Кфиру никакой выгоды из-за тех утяжелений, которые сопровождали его установку.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/show...ge-clones)&s=54ca3afbecea14c9ff664920610c33f3

Mirage F.1 vs Kfir and Cheetah (the Mirage clones)

"Combat Aircraft" magazine had an article on the Ecuadorean experience with its Cheetah C and D fighters. (The Atlas Cheetah derivative of the Dassault Mirage III was developed by Atlas and IAI. Most Cheetahs are powered by the Atar 9C rated at 60.8 kN (13,670 lb/6,200 kg) thrust.) Apparently the addition of the intake at the root of vertical fin added enough drag on the Kfir so as to make its general performance quite similar to the Cheetah, which was powered by a much less powerful Atar 9K50C-11 engine that generated around 70 kN with reheat. That, combined with the higher angle of attack that the Cheetah could attain meant that it was considered comparable to the Kfir in its performance.

Mirage F.1 is almost out of service with only 4 countries using it. Kfir and Cheetah operators seem to be more wide spread. Most interestingly, a few operators who had the F.1 chose to continue using the clone of the earlier Mirage, over the F.1. such as South Africa. Was the basic Mirage 3/5 design more future upgrade friendly than the F.1, leading to the Cheetah and Kfir being superior in both a2a and a2g?

(Миражи Ф1 уже почти вышли из применения и только 4 страны все еще используют их. Стран, использующих Кфир и Чита больше.Наиболее интересно то, что несколько стран, использовавших мираж Ф1, предпочли продолжить использовать клоны более раннего Миража (Миража III), чем приобрести больше Миражей Ф1. Была ли конструкция Миража 3 и 5 лучше для будущих модернизаций, чем конструкция Миража Ф1, что привело к тому, что оба Чита и Кфир превзошли Мираж Ф1 как в ведении воздушного боя, так и в работе по наземным целям?)

But the Mirage F1 was not replaced by the Cheetah C. The SAAF were impressed with the Mirage F1 aerodynamic performance and it continued to be the premier combat aircraft in the South African inventory.

SAAF chose to upgrade Mirage-3 FIRST, THEN Mirage F1 because the latter were far more capable and longer range than the former. So they did not want their air force strengh to be weakened if upgrading Mirage F1 first. However, after upgrading Mirage 3, the weapon sanctions were lifted so it was more reasonable to source new fighters instead.

Kfirs were allegedly POS (барахло). A bolt-on solution of integrating an available J79 into the existing Mirage airframe. More power was available but 350+ kg has been added, point of balance has been shifted and the control system was not able to compensate that completely, the thing has lost all that crisp fineness of the original design.

Nobody has ever claimed Kfir to be a world class fighter. However, for developing countries without all the amenities of the bleeding edge, it's a rather deadly fighter. Some would probably argue to both friend and foe. But it brings capabilities into reach that would require far more man-hours and money to get elsewhere. It's more or less the western equivalent of a MiG-21 Lancer or Bison program. It's not meant to be F-15 class.

I would rank it there, yes. A cheap solution to get a decent radar/Missile on a supersonic airframe, though the airframe is very dated now, even more than the Mirage F1, and the engine change really spoiled a lot of it, even with more power. The first Kfir, not a canard one, was a big-big disappointment for former Mirage III fighter jokeys that were intended to use it. The canard solution improved the thing a bit, but also added weight to the airframe cause it had to be reinforced. The performance was better, right, but balance and handling were terrible. Compared to ATAR, the J79 was short, heavy and positioned way too aft.

The Kfir is very fast (Mach 2+) and fast-accelerating air-craft. Many countries are still flying the Kfir it seems.

Everything I've seen indicates the J-79 mated to the Mirage III airframe wasn't a match made in heaven.
Apart from the different weight, shape and positioning, the J-79 also required extensive heat shielding and additional cooling scoops and trunking.
The J-79 certainly provided more thrust over the ATAR 09C that the Israelis used on their Mirage IIIC, but the ATAR 9K50 as used by the Cheetah (and Mirage F1 incidentally) was a far superior mating. The Israelis never used the more powerful ATAR 09K50 which was only slightly less powerful than the J-79 as compared to the original ATARs.
The roughly 5 to 10% increase of thrust the J-79 had over the 09K50 must be balanced with the J-79's heavier weight and draggier installation in the Mirage III airframe.
For example, take a look at the airframe of the Kfir and Cheetah C from aft of the cockpit. The Cheetah has a far cleaner airframe, from the refueling probe, cable bulges on the Kfir's wing roots and generally large and messy air cooling scoops found on the Kfir mid and rear fuselage.
Probably the primary driver of the J-79 on the Mirage III airframe was the fact that Israel already used it by hundreds on the F4 Phantom, and could avail of US military aid. Israel after all was the largest foreign user of the Phantom.
Last edited by wilhelm; 16th October 2016 at 12:15.

The Mirage III/V series sold very well only because they were cheap (I think about $5M in the 80s) and there was no other real option back in the 60s if you were not part of the Warsaw pact/ /commie club, the US was forcing the F-104 on everyone. The Mirage 3/5 was horribly unmaneuverable, a sharp turn did little beyond yaw the aircraft and bleed speed as the elevons acted more as giant air breaks. The reason Israel and South Africa used them is that Israel had no good choice of US aircraft in the 60s, the Mirage 3/5 was the only mach 2 option, and the fact that they stole the blueprints meant they were safe from embargos. Israel and South Africa upgraded to Kfir/Cheetah only because the Kfir program started way back in the 60s before F-15s and F-16s would make them unnecessary. South Africa was still under apartheid when they did the Cheetah conversions.
The F1, on the other hand, was an outstanding fighter that could hold its own against anything at the time it was introduced and is still a good fighter by today's standards. But FBW made the pure-delta wing a good thing again with the Mirage 2000. So the F1 stopped being as important.

The J79 was superior at higher altitude than the Atar. None of the Mirage users used them at 50,000 feet but we know the J79 could handle it. The Atar was a hotrodded mo-tor that ran hotter than the metals and corresponding lubrica-tion systems were able to handle, especially at high altitud-es. So the J79 wasn't some hot mess or anything. Its use on Kfir was because it was available.

For what I know the Mirage IIICJ jokeys LOVED the plane. Yes, it bled speed in turns due to the delta, but all controls were perfectly balanced and it made the plane effortless to fly, and this is what you need when fighting. All you have to do is use the correct tactics with what you have.
I’ve read stories of it fighting against MiG-17s, that was THE dogfighter of the time (that wonder wing), and it did pretty well.
Again, the blueprints-stolen-by-Israel story is a cover story. All Neshers (Mirage V ) were built in France and assembled in Israel. As for the Kfir, the main study on the J-79 integra-tion on the airframe was done by a Rockwell engineer, also with some help from Dassault.

I also don't know about performances at altitude, but the J-79 ran hotter than the Atar in fact. Some heat shielding had to be installed in the rear fuselage, plus all these cooling air scoops, main one at the base of the fin.

Mirage 3 beat nearly everything in its prime.

On the topic of the Kfir, I have always had my doubts abo-ut the listed empty weight, considering the heavier engine, extensive heat shielding needed in the rear fuselage, ca-nards, and the strengthened undercarriage with longer st-roke oleos.
The J-79 required larger intakes due to its greater mass flow over the ATAR 09C, and it's higher operating temperature, apart from the heat shielding mentioned above, required the recognizable extra air cooling scoops and trunking.
None of that would reduce weight when compared to the Mirage 5 or Dagger/Nesher.
It is also noticeable that the Nesher is quoted as being half a ton lighter than the Mirage 5 regarding empty weight...

Well, just using Wikipedia as a quick reference, it's stated that the Kfir has a 700 kg greater empty weight compared to the Cheetah C, so nobody is denying that the Kfir is heavier. However the Kfir also has a 12.5% greater thrust. The Kfir is also quoted as having a 30% greater external payload which is significant. How to make a side-by-side comparison with both aircraft?

Well, just using Wikipedia as a quick reference, it's stated that the Kfir has a 700 kg greater empty weight compared to the Cheetah C, so nobody is denying that the Kfir is heavier. However the Kfir also has a 12.5% greater thrust. The Kfir is also quoted as having a 30% greater external payload which is significant. How to make a side-by-side comparison with both aircraft?

The Cheetah C empty weight as quoted on Wiki is hope-lessly inaccurate. I have its true empty weight. In fact, the weight given there corresponds to the "official" weight given for the Nesher. The Nesher is to all intents a Mirage 5. Which has an official empty weight half a ton heavier.
This is exactly why I distrust the "official" weight given for the Kfir, and all its additions, never mind the Nesher.
If one looks at the Nesher being a Mirage 5, then the large additional changes that were done to the Kfir would show an empty weight much higher than the figure normally provided.
Then looking further at the Kfir C10 and the Cheetah C, with their further structural additions, and internal multirole avionics... about the most honest figure I've seen given publicly is for the Cheetah C. Of course, we get to the issue of what exactly constitutes "empty" weight.

If we haven't got accurate figures for each aircraft and we can't trust what we are given, what's the point in trying to make a true comparison? Ultimately, if the Kfir has a greater payload and range, it can be excused for having a greater empty weight, surely?

I highly doubt either payload or range is much better on the Kfir vs Cheetah C. The J-79 thrust is not much greater than the Atar 9K50C-11 and the Cheetah has an extented fuselage like the F1. And the Cheetah has canards, so all that together would mean they are close to equal.

On the subject of weight:

It is interesting to view the cockpit position of the Mirage III and developments through time.
The original Mirage IIIC fighter had the rear of the cockpit that started slightly behind the air intakes.
As is well known, the multirole Mirage IIIE had a fuselage exten-sion (about 300 mm), bringing the rear of the cockpit in line with the air intakes.
The Cheetah C has a further fuselage extension, with the rear of the cockpit now well forward of the air intakes.

The Mirage IIICZ has an official empty weight of around 6400 kg.
The Mirage IIIE had an official empty weight of 7050 kg.
The Cheetah C is largely redesigned, with a maximum takeoff weight a full 3 tons heavier than the Mirage IIIE.
It has a slightly enlarged wing area courtesy of the dogtooth extensions instead of the traditional slot.
It has a different, beefed up undercarriage.
It has canards.
It is longer, and has an air-to-air refuelling probe.
It has a heavier, more powerful engine.
It has an internal jamming suite, multimode radar and electronics.
Different control motors for its flight system.
Cockpit canopy...
The list goes on....
Take a look at the pics of the two aircraft below: A Mirage IIICZ and a Cheetah C. They're almost two different aircraft, sharing the same layout.
The 6600 kg empty weight given on wiki for the Cheetah C is fiction, as is the original Kfir empty weight (canards, heavier engine, cooling/heat shield requirements etc) when compared to the Mirage 5 it is based on...
And the developed multirole Kfir C10 will be that much heavier yet again.

> You're right, we can't assume anything about either aircraft.

-- I don't think it is either. I'm just going from what has been told me....that the J-79 wasn't the perfect match, and that the relatively marginal extra thrust (over the 9K50, not the original 09C admittedly) was eaten up by the heavier weight of the engine, and extensive modifications (wider intakes, cooling, shielding, wider rear fuselage etc) needed to install the engine.
It made perfect sense from an Israeli POV (point of view), as I've mentioned, due to the credits available from the US, and the fact that the Israeli air force used the J-79 by the hundreds.
But I wouldn't assume it lead to a better performance per se, taking all things into consideration.

My main, admittedly convoluted point about the Cheetah C vs Mirage III empty weight applies to the vanilla Kfir C2 and C7.
Official weight of the Mirage 5 is 7150kg.
The Kfir C7 is given as 7280kg.
Yet even a cursory examination will reveal the J-79 is 300kg heavier than the Mirage 5 ATAR 09C. And we haven't even started to address the Kfir's obviously different, beefed-up stronger undercarriage, additional heat shield requirements, cooling requirements, and additional structures such as canards and wing dog-tooth extensions.

-- Either way, the last/latest of the Mirage III design line were bigger, heavier, far more capable aircraft than the originals were....but that is to be expected with the march of time. 30 years down the line, give or take, a development thereof was a multirole fighter, capable of strike missions with PGM's, and capable of using BVRAAM's out to about 60km, and yet also having helmet guided short range AAMs for the merge. That capability was not to be sneezed at 20 years ago by anyone, and shows what can be squeezed out of a design.

> Hello mein kaiser, could you tell me more about the Chee-tah vs kfir's difference in terms of structure? It seems that you are implying that the Cheetah airframe is better suited for all the modern upgrades (canards, radar, etc).

> Hello, my sizzling delicious friend. I'm not saying that at all.
Lion cubs and cheetahs aren't the only big cats... You get others, such as a panther for example. All cats, yet all dif-ferent...
For example, have a look at my picture on the last page of the Cheetah C, the one taken from the three-quarter view.
Look at the midway point of the dorsal fuselage, near the low profile airscoops.
You will see something interesting regarding the fuselage structure that hints at something.
I'm saying that the slightly more powerful J-79 as fitted to the Kfir was not a better aerodynamic match compared to the ATAR 09K50 in the airframe we are discussing...

> Do you mean that small bump visible on the fuselage spine profile?

> I do mean that bump, Serge, and as you've correctly inferr-ed, the other Mirage III airframe fitted with the ATAR 09K50 doesn't have that same feature.

> Merci Guillaume, Please, please, give us a hint of what was there? Extra fuel ...?

> It is a hybrid, partly a Kfir airframe design, with the fuse-lage starting to widen at that junction that was built to house the J-79.
All the original SAAF Mirage airframes were utilized to build the original Cheetah E, R reconnaissance models, and D two seaters.
There weren't enough left over for the Cheetah C program.
The Cheetah C utilises portions of the Kfir airframe, but in a slender new build rear fuselage that doesn't need to some-how accomodate the bulkier, heavier J-79 and its associated cooling requirements.
The front fuselage portions are also new. It's a very interest-ing hybrid. The differences between the air-to-air refuelling probes and their position also show there are differences beneath the skin of the Cheetah C and Kfir C10, apart from the obvious differences in the front fuselage/nose, and rear fuselage.

Hence my inference to the "big cats". I was referring to the Pantera which was equipped with the ATAR 09K50 too. The rear fuselages of the Cheetah C and Pantera are different even with the same engine, which are different yet again from the Kfir. The Cheetah C fuselage in the cockpit area is also deeper than the Pantera.
The J-79 installation was an Israeli expedient, based primari-ly on supply, military credits, and existing maintenance facili-ties and supply lines due to them already using hundreds of airframes with the J-79. The Israelis never used the most powerful of the ATARs, the 09K50, so I suppose that made sense to them.
I'll reiterate the point that due to the engine and its associat-ed structural/cooling requirements, the Kfir must weigh more than any ATAR-powered model, even the heavier, more powerful ATAR 09K50 editions.
The entire Mirage III development family is very interesting, with airframes turning out quite different as they developed. Even the wing planform changed, and it would have been even more had one of the Advanced Combat Wing designs (there were I think 3 different versions) on the Cheetah been fitted to service aircraft instead of only test aircraft. Again, that was a budget/Cold War ending issue that stopped that.
It is testimony to the wonderful adaptive original design by Dassault. As can be seen, the end of the line of the Mirage III family are very different beasts to the original. Dassault got the basics very right.

The J79 was heavier, bigger and shorter than Atar 9K50 so Kfir aerodynamically was not quite optimized. Therefore the best engine for Mirage 3/5 should be Atar Plus that was jointly developed by Snecma & SAAF with max thrust inc-reased by 12% to over 8,000 kgf.

The main gain from the J79 is the better sfc at first. The weight of the engine is no issue with the total weight of a combat-loaden fighter in mind. The frontal area decides about the excess thrust left versus design drag. To compare different engines in the same design by installed static thrust alone is misleading most of the time. When it comes to integ-ration of the ATAR 9s in the Mirage 5 fuselage the thrust gains from the J79 are limited and seldom worth the extra cost in need. The main reason to stay away in the end is the cost penalty involved to support a different second engine in doing so.

I remember about that: Its fuel consumption was also much more economical than the 09K50. It would have offered an excellent solution to the needs of the Carver program, ...

Since the 90s money spent for avionic upgrades and weaponry are much more important than any engine upgrade. Fighter performance is no longer dependent on flight performance.

160 ATAR 09C's were licence-produced in Australia in the end, with a final local content of 85%
 
#59
Скажите, а в какой еще теме этот вопрос обсуждался? Если бы я знал, я бы написал туда .

Tatius и Плантатор - большое спасибо за ваши ответы насчет боя Мустангов с Як-3..
В теме про ПАК ФА идут разборки между миражем 3 и миг-21. Причем там скоро начнется поножовщина
 
#60
То есть советские истребители приняли "Мустанги" за немцев и напали?
Не по военному рассуждаешь...
Прежде всего в прямое нарушение приказа командующего 1-м Белорусским фронтом ( это Жуков Г.К.) о запрете вылетов во время действий американских бомбардировщиков (согласование на уровне Эйзенхауэра) командир 3-го ИАК 16 ВА генерал-лейтенант Савицкий Е.А. принял решение о подъеме в воздух 176 ГИАП и 402 ИАП.
Данное решение привело к трагическому результату, гибели пилотов, потерям техники и снижению боеготовности 265 ИАД ( 402 ИАП в тот же день вывели в тыл).
Жуков лично рассматривал дело ( красочное описание эпизода в мемуарах командующего 16 ВА Руденко С.И)
PS. 402 ИАП ( лучший полк РККА) так и не получил звание гвардейского.