dark light

Multirole

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 761 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Missing Malaysian Airlines B777 #499197
    Multirole
    Participant

    Seems to me the most likely objective of a hijacking is to crash the plane into some high profile target.

    I’m thinking this is a United 93 scenario where the passengers and crew tried to retake the plane, forcing the hijacker to abort their mission.

    in reply to: Missing Malaysian Airlines B777 #500254
    Multirole
    Participant

    This is the only missing airplane case where everyday that pass by, we seem to known less about what happened. At this rate maybe tomorrow they will say Flight 370 never took off.

    in reply to: Missing Malaysian Airlines B777 #500596
    Multirole
    Participant

    This is the weirdest airliner incident I have ever heard of. Not only is the series of events inexplicable, but we are at day five, and only now are we being told the plane made a complete course change into another body of water? We have dozens of international ships and aircraft searching the wrong side of Malaysia for days.

    in reply to: Missing Malaysian Airlines B777 #500823
    Multirole
    Participant

    Any chance someone mistakenly shot it down, and is keeping mum?

    in reply to: future of ukrainian air force? #2237997
    Multirole
    Participant

    Remember when US pressured Ukraine into giving up it’s nukes? Doesn’t bode well for non-proliferation negotiations.

    in reply to: Will the A-10 go? #2243553
    Multirole
    Participant

    Air Force would much rather keep the U-2 a few more years. They say Global Hawk cost twice as much per hour and still suffer from frequent critical systems failure.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2248185
    Multirole
    Participant

    The guy says F-35 can detect Russian and Chinese 5th gen fighters at 5-10 times the range they could detect the Lightning. What kind of assumptions are being made here?

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2248518
    Multirole
    Participant

    I don’t think they deployed that chopper during their brief Iraq tour either.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2248525
    Multirole
    Participant

    They do look similar, but I prefer the Ninja for its sensor ball location:

    That works better for hiding behind the bushes, but maybe not as well for keeping an eye on insurgents from up high? In case of the former, mast mounted sensors are better anyways.

    in reply to: ShinMaywa US-2 Vs Boeing P-8I #2252586
    Multirole
    Participant

    Tradewind refueling cougars

    Imagine the same video with laden Thunderchiefs or F4D…

    The prob is that they are draggy and then have less range. The turbulence generated prevents also a more flexible usage hence restraining OP tempo. What is detrimental to all commander.

    I like flying boat but their are niche airplanes.

    I’m picturing a Seamaster refueling Phantoms.

    in reply to: ShinMaywa US-2 Vs Boeing P-8I #2252597
    Multirole
    Participant

    I think that is a good idea, use one of them inflatable fuel bladders for Osprey when it is used as refueler,
    or simply have it there at all time, even on the occasional water bombing

    Hmmm interesting. US-2 is probably too slow to refuel fixed wings, Be-200 seems about right.

    in reply to: ShinMaywa US-2 Vs Boeing P-8I #2252680
    Multirole
    Participant

    Flying boats have their place as transports, search and rescue, and for East Asian navies, mine/counter mine warfare probably figures highly in their use. Since they exist in the inventory, sure why not use them for MPA. But no one will specify a dedicated ASW aircraft must operate from water.

    It occurs to me no one has used flying boats as aerial tankers. They might be quite useful for countries that want force projection but have no large tanker bases.

    in reply to: ShinMaywa US-2 Vs Boeing P-8I #2252760
    Multirole
    Participant

    Why would anyone want a ASW aircraft that can take off and land on water? Maybe in WWII when they needed some flying boats based on distant islands with no runways. It’s a totally obsolete concept today.

    in reply to: India- PAK-FA or Rafale??? #2254022
    Multirole
    Participant

    A bird in hand is better than two in the bush. If one has to go, it has to be PAK-FA which has far more risk. Build the Rafale now and India can always import the PAK-FA later, or find a suitable replacement in the F-35. If they commit to a fifth gen in development they could be in a bind ten years down the road with an obsolete and dwindling force on the one hand and unforeseen technical or cost issues with the PAK-FA on the other.

    in reply to: MiG-23MS and Mirage III/5 #2258102
    Multirole
    Participant

    with half the thrust it could not be the rough field capable pure interceptor the MiG was designed to be.

    Based on that comment I have to ask…….have you ever flown off of a rough surface in an airplane?

    (In case I’m not clear, the fact that the MiG has far more power doesn’t have anything to do with it being designed for operation from rough surfaces.)

    No I have not. What I meant was the Flogger is a fast accelerating interceptor with a lot of thrust, and it’s not optimized for maneuvering. But unlike previous Soviet interceptors the MiG-23 has rough field capability with it’s VG wings and very robust landing gears.

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 761 total)