dark light

chuck1981

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 561 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Missile Defense Part 2 #1783707
    chuck1981
    Participant

    When it comes to Nukes, a defense 25% of the time is always better than no defense at all……..Might not win the game, but all in all someone/something will be saved…

    In war, no one ever deals in “definites”…….

    Talking about the GBU-28 if i remember correctly they pulled old 8 inch cannon barrels out from a local DOD depot near me in PA…….quite frankly, as rushed and “screwed up” im sure the process was, they worked. And, I will say I was happy to see some old school yankee engineering come through in the end, it was and still is about time the guys on the ground have a say….

    “Necessity is the mother of all Invention”

    in reply to: F-22B #2460490
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Honestly, I have not really looked into the cureent engines powering the “arsenal of democracy”…….but from the little I do know, the F-22 would find itself in a less “powerful” area if it were to use the other engine, because its F-119 was and is based upon hight speed cruise….etc etc

    Turbojets are more efficiecnt at these high speeds than any turbofan……least thats what I have read….

    One reason why the GE engine that was a possibility was a “dual-cycle” (sorry forget the exact words, but it was something along those lines.

    Not saying the F-119 is a turbojet, but as I heard it described, its a “leaky” turbojet…

    in reply to: Missile Defense Part 2 #1783804
    chuck1981
    Participant

    This may have been bad reporting, but did anyone notice the line where both representatives said “they made it clear to Czech and Polish officials that Obama’s policies on missile defense will be guided by U.S. national security interests, and not by “external threats.”

    Ehhhh, aren’t our “national security interest” designed/guided by “external threats”, whether violent or economic ones?

    Oh and Bipartisanship is nothing more than group think with no leaders, which quite frankly is what is causing all the problems in DC, but thats for another thread.

    And honestly, if they are just talking about taking a stage off of the launcher…..how hard can it be? We do have some experience putting things, large and small, into space at all different heights, well I think we do. Not saying it is a simple solution and no problems will arise, but I don’t believe it’s as hard as everyone (politicans, news media etc etc) are making it out to be.

    in reply to: X-47B unveiled. #2465786
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Is this why the USN has been “so-so” in regards to the F-35C?

    in reply to: General Discussion #300579
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Just finished the latest edition of “Jugs” ..some interesting articles

    Dam, dont tell me what this months copy is about, I didn’t receive mine yet :diablo:

    (Al Bundy I presume….)

    in reply to: The last book that you read (to rival Daz's thread!) #1889011
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Just finished the latest edition of “Jugs” ..some interesting articles

    Dam, dont tell me what this months copy is about, I didn’t receive mine yet :diablo:

    (Al Bundy I presume….)

    in reply to: F-35D #2467396
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Silly question, but weren’t there ideas of the liftfan being replaced with some sorta generator sometime in the future to provide power for some sorta directed energy weapon or laser?

    in reply to: Manouverbility not as obsolete as i thought! #2467409
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Ehhhh, yes, cept for the infamous SA-2 that got some shrapnel imbedded into an A-12 over Vietnam? (Anyone help me here with better facts? lol)

    Needless to say, the SR-71 wasn’t invulnerable, just very hard to intercept unless you were in the right place at the right time…with a missle or aircraft.

    in reply to: UK to retire Harrier force. #2467413
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Compared to a USN carrier, how will the CVFs stack up when it comes to munitions and avfuel storage? Actually, how does the Cdg stack up also?

    Im guessing its:

    1-USN Nimitz and follow on
    2-RN CVF
    3-French Naval Cdg

    But does anyone have raw numbers we can really compare? I mean if the Cdg has
    7/10ths of the “Nimitz” capacity for 1/3 the price……well then we got ourselves a deal, in most Navies cases.

    This is all that I am wondering.

    Oh, and if anyone has any info on how EMALS is progressing, I’d love to read it, thanks.

    in reply to: Manouverbility not as obsolete as i thought! #2467467
    chuck1981
    Participant

    So there is a fighter that can out-turn MiG-25 at 2.8M ?

    Just a guess, but maybe a Mig-31? I know a lot of things were improved, were any of the aerodynamics for high speed flight/agility improved also?

    Otherwise, the answer, as pointed out, is probably no…..On the other hand, a plane traveling at that speed, whether a Mig-25/31 or SR-71 is going to have a large turning radius, depending upon its own aerodynamic intricacies of course 🙂

    in reply to: Film of the way carrier landings used to be in the RN #2055009
    chuck1981
    Participant

    I found the “Wessex”? 180′ turn interesting 🙂 and the jolly good attitude of the Brits intriguing 🙂

    But what I found most interesting was the one Buck pilot, from what I gathered he was a RAF pilot and this was his first time landing on a carrier? Does that mean he had no prior training in a simpler training aircraft to get him used to flying the ball?

    If that is true, some gutsy, gutsy flying, and even gutsier deck personnel. Hell, my hats off to the the RN for even allowing such a thing to happen.

    in reply to: F-35 #2470514
    chuck1981
    Participant

    According to the air force the F-22 has a 1,850 mile ferry range with two external tanks. In this configuration the F-22 is carrying a total of 26,000 pounds of fuel. Without the tanks the F-22 carries 18,000 pounds internally. Obviously this is not going to be linear since removing the drop tanks removes drag but if you do the math then the F-22 has a range of around 1100 nautical miles or put another way a combat radius on internal fuel of over 550 nautical miles.

    The old Lockheed Martin F-22 site
    http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
    Estimates the combat radius as 310 nautical miles + 100 nautical miles in super cruise for a total of 410 nautical miles. Surely 200 nautical miles of super cruise is significant.

    I guess, just for shi*ts and giggles, how fast can and F-22 go supersonic and sustain it? As in, like the old(probably recent) sub tactics, sprint and drift….Not sure if that idea would be pertinent to modern air combat, but im sure it could have some use.

    in reply to: F-35 #2470552
    chuck1981
    Participant

    Ok, honest question from a F-22 fanboy…Has anyone outside the DOD looked into dectecting a F-22 with IR or something of the sorts when the F-22 is supercrusing? JW, im sure there have been “studies”, I was wondering if there was anything more definitve than that.

    And, as a side note, the range of the F-22 came up…Does anyone really have any idea? IM jw, i hear so many differnt numbers being plodded about its almost pointless to pay attention to any of them, unless they say the F-22 has a 900 mile range supercrusing….I think we could all agree thats BS, but then who knows…

    in reply to: Modern Military Aviation News from around the world – II #2470589
    chuck1981
    Participant

    I hate to screw up the “NEWS SECTION”, but what in the hell is that C-27J doing upsidedown, and does anyone have a vid?

    BTW, Tango, thanks for the great work, I check once a day just to see what you have posted, you do all of us a GREAT service…..again, thanks 🙂

    in reply to: F-22 Already obsolete? #2470593
    chuck1981
    Participant

    I know this sounds simple and quite frankly stupid, but what in the hell is stopping the USAF let alone the DOD from opening up a competition to replace the F-22s sensors, with whatever crap (requirements) they want to go along with them? And honestly, there are enough computer software/engineers in America (outside the military-industrial complex, yes there is one, not that it is the entire problem) to solve the problem. Lets do what we Americans do, and get this shiat done, fixed, figured out and keep the goddam line moving. I for one am tired of all the political pantywaist in DC and the well we could, but it will be so haaaaaard. Oh shut up, get it done. I’ll get it done for ya, I only have a High School Diploma and a License from you (the Feds) saying I’m a aircraft mechanic, but what do I know?

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 561 total)