Daneshmand
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,109
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
Your reply is dishonest. Firstly there is no sophisticated missile or AAA in the hands of Isis, nor they have the human resources to field such systems. The engine failure is a very real possibility and it need not be an explosive one. A twin engine design certainly gives a much better survival possibility than a single engine design, specially in such situation that IRIAF is operating. Secondly, an F-4 carries much heavier load of bombs than F-16, thereby cutting down on number of sorties required for the job therefore decreasing the possibility of losing a bird over Isis territory due to an engine failure. If compressor sheds a blade which happens from time to time, there is a great possibility that the F-16 pilot will be on a video with a knife at his throat. The F-4 pilot will come home with the other engine running.
The US navy is "GOING". It has not yet gone. The F-35 is an unproven platform. It is ill suited to CAS, since it is a fast flying jet with thin skin. For CAS, an aircraft like Su-25 is better than F-35 since at ranges it operates, stealth has no meaning. Besides, F-35 has a very compromised design. A CAS or ground attack aircraft that uses fuel in its hydraulic system as F-35 does, in place of conventional non-flammable hydraulic fluid in order to save weight is a poor design. Even a hit from small arms fire will bring that plane down in fire. It is not a survivable plane.
A-10 is truly an excellent design. I do not dispute that.
You are again being dishonest. But then it seems you are a dishonest person, hiding behind your prejudice. I did not claim that twin engine fighter is "better" than a single engine one. Go and read my comments again. I said, in this particular situation a mission planner would send in a twin design for the reasons I have enumerated above. And you did not answer the central question here, which was not about twin/single engine design. It was about the failure of Turkish AF in its strategic objectives. Which you did not even address. So much so for your honesty in argument.
mate , after sometime u can easily realize the fanboys in this forum are the overwhelming majority .
sometimes u have to just be silent in response , which is much more effective on fanboys
B.S .
for fighters like F-14 and F-15 or basically any fighter jet whose engines are far apart , that maybe a valid discussion .
but for fighters like F-18 or F-5 , the second engine is always an "spare" as u call it , to the second one in case of engine failure .
Yes, I can see that. They are immature. They have failed miserably in their strategic planning. Let them feel good about their "uber" aircrafts. When kids start crying, we give them toys. Let them have their toys.
Basically that is right. The farther engines are from each other the safer the design becomes. But in A-10, they have gone even further by placing engines outside the mainframe of the aircraft and as far away from fuel tanks as well. It is an excellent design. In Su-25, they have placed a titanium armor plate between the engines to separate them from each other so in case one engine explodes, the other remains safe.
Well, he is angry. It is understandable. Turkey has lost so much in the past 4 years over the issue of Syria. Their dreams of becoming the leader of Islamic world has gone down the drain. They have now to deal with millions of refugees with whom they have little cultural affinity (they are Arabs), for decades and possibly forever. Alot of these refugees will eventually have to be given Turkish citizenship and will inevitably through their presence modify the Turkish culture and society. The Turkish society has become polarized and fragmented. The core of Turkish state which rests on the idea of secularism has come under doubt. And so on and so forth. It is his anger at his loss and his jealousy of Iran that forces him to behave in the way that he does. We are just pouring petrol on him.
Arminkh,
Thank you for the welcome!
