Page 2 – Key Publishing

logical1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 130 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 →

Author

Posts
December 11, 2016 at 3:19 pm in reply to: What are the most disappointing and overhyped aircraft to you? #2135243

logical1
Participant

I nominate the F-22. The F-23 was a superior aircraft.

I also nominate the F-4 while it was a good aircraft, at the time of the run off the F8U-3 could fly rings around it, and it was much faster.

September 24, 2016 at 2:19 am in reply to: What's the difference between energy–maneuverability theory & Supermaneuverability #2135612

logical1
Participant

Isnt this kind of all moot, when we are told that the F-22 will stand off at stealth range and destroy the enemy with missiles?

September 7, 2016 at 4:19 pm in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2148087

logical1
Participant

My position as a technician that has worked on machines all my life is the fact that ANY machine that is supposed to be a do all, end all, all things to all people, ends up doing all those jobs rather poorly. This would include the F-35

August 27, 2016 at 2:56 pm in reply to: Yeager says F-22 and the F-35 are a waste of money #2155302

logical1
Participant

Im quite sure with all his contacts in the military Yeager is kept abreast of developments. Consider the fact that these military contacts will tell Yeager the truth that they wont tell the general public, for fear of reprisals from the Pentagon for not toeing the political line.

Remember the political system that tried to foist off the F-111 as a fighter???? Turns out it was a far too heavy of a pig for a fighter, but it did turn out to be a pretty fair medium bomber.

August 27, 2016 at 2:43 pm in reply to: Yeager says F-22 and the F-35 are a waste of money #2155303

logical1
Participant

so, let’s get this straight. YOU prefer the opinion of a 93 year old man (who has been getting into trouble on twitter lately with disparaging remarks of all kinds, some aimed at the U.K.), who’s last TAC command was F-4’s? He did fly F-15’s and F-20’s after retirement, mostly as PR.

Current pilot’s opinions who’ve all praised both aircraft are null and void over Yeager’s tweet, is this about the long and short of your position? Perhaps it’s time to change your name to “illogical1” because that is about hight of illogical thinking.

(My Grandfather was a superb fisherman, I stopped taking his advice on where to fish when he got into his 80’s. Not because he was any less knowledgeable about trout or techniques. His knowledge was outdated, his favorite streams no longer held trout. Things change and the world advances.)

Of course current pilot say both planes are wonderful. With the political climate in Washington if they didnt, they would be thrown out of the service!!!!

August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm in reply to: Yeager says F-22 and the F-35 are a waste of money #2156307

logical1
Participant

I guess I would rather believe a stick jockey than computer key board jockeys that post here.

June 23, 2016 at 1:45 am in reply to: The YF-23 Black Widow II #2204151

logical1
Participant

The YF-22 was reportedly lighter than the YF-23. In the evolution to the F-22, the design gained weight. There is no reason to think that the evolution from YF-23 to F-23 would have been different. In fact, the YF-23 EMD would have included significant changes ( would have added second small weapons bay, larger nose, redesigned engine nacelles). The YF-23 was deemed riskier on the very basis of modifications needed from prototype to EMD.

General consensus was that the YF-23 was “stealthier”. Yes, the YF-23 was faster than the YF-22. However, the F-22, as evolved was faster than either F119 powered prototypes in supercruise, but there is no way to say if the F-23 would have been faster still. The F-23 would have reduced area ruling, and redesigned nozzles.

The F-22 gained weigh————–what an under statement. If you google the F-22 the empty weight is listed as 43,000 pounds vs the F-23 empty weight of 29,000 pounds.

June 23, 2016 at 1:31 am in reply to: Is the west missing out by not having a flanker size aircraft. #2204157

logical1
Participant

Well, there were planes even bigger and heavier than the Flankers: just think about F-14 and F-111.
Let’s say that the costructive formula the Soviets developed i.e. blended wings and engine pods with its characteristic of great solidity, great free volumes and reduced drag worked well if not even better on very big planes than on medium sized ones.
In the west there is a divide between Europeans, that having lesser spaces to look at usually are not greatly interested in long range planes and the USA and even more the USN that have instead a more definite interest in the bigger ones.

Exactly. Remember in the early days of the Gulf war, only the F-14 had the legs to go where it was needed.

June 20, 2016 at 4:43 am in reply to: The YF-23 Black Widow II #2204858

logical1
Participant

If you look at the specs on the two aircraft, the Widow has more wing area, is lighter, and has the same engines. That means the Widow would have better performance. People that claim to be in the know said the Widow flew faster and higher, with more stealth. If you are higher, faster, and cant be see by the enemy, you are the victor.

IMO the fact the Widow was not picked is shot through with politics. This was not the first time Washington politics picked the wrong aircraft, or killed one that should have been bought.

May 16, 2016 at 1:28 pm in reply to: Why am I not reading about a new generation fighter for the Navy? #2014847

logical1
Participant

When you google the number of military bases in foreign countries, it says we are in 130 countries with 900 bases. Closing at least half of them would yield tens of Billions of dollars the Navy could use for a new modern fighter, and used to build more carriers.

May 15, 2016 at 1:29 am in reply to: Why am I not reading about a new generation fighter for the Navy? #2014874

logical1
Participant

A fixed base can do many things that an aircraft carrier can’t, & an aircraft carrier can only be in one place at a time. Closing bases would necessitate more aircraft carriers. How much would they cost, with all their supporting ships?

Fixed bases cant go anywhere, and many are subject to the countries they are in.

May 14, 2016 at 1:30 pm in reply to: Why am I not reading about a new generation fighter for the Navy? #2014885

logical1
Participant

As is your position…

All defence budgets are a matter of compromise and yet you’ve failed to identify which programs that are needed now, you’d cancel, to pay for a new aircraft to counter a threat which doesn’t exist…

Well, since we have a number of aircraft carriers that can sail to a trouble spot, how about closing at least half of the foreign bases, that cost billions. That would more than cover the cost of a new ultra modern fighter.

May 13, 2016 at 1:15 pm in reply to: Why am I not reading about a new generation fighter for the Navy? #2014904

logical1
Participant

No our two positions can be better summed up like this. You want to spend money your Navy doesnt have on a threat that doesnt exist in any real timeframe because you watched Top Gun too many times as a kid. Against this I dont want your Navy to do this as I know they have vastly more important stuff to spend the money on and, generally, you dont like to see your major allies doing stuff that is hurtlingly stupid….it would shake ones faith in the wisdom of your allies where they to act as you suggest.

Whats more here is that you know your Navy has vastly more important stuff to spend the money on too as you’ve been carefully avoiding anything like an answer to a real question put to you. You’re doing this because you are trying very hard to hold on to the blissful daydream that all you need is a few bars of ‘Danger Zone’ and the bad guys are packed back in their boxes until you need another enemy to give a good beating to.

Its my business as, last time I looked, your country was a NATO member state. My country is also a NATO member state….coincidence hey?. That means I’m interested in what your services do in capability terms….just as I am what the Germans do….just as I am what the Italians do….all for the same reason.

I’m sure Logical there are forums where fantasists post their wishlists. Its not done so much here….too many here know the wider realities for ‘playtime with Maverick and Goose’ to go unremarked on.

I still say your position is a fail. You say that the “threat doesnt exist” but there is no way in the world you can know what threats the country will have in 5 to 7 years.

May 12, 2016 at 9:14 pm in reply to: Why am I not reading about a new generation fighter for the Navy? #2014914

logical1
Participant

Great. Save for the fact that in 7yrs time its difficult to identify the 5th gen threat that is in service, in sufficient strength, to present an F-35C/E-2D CAW team with an unassailable Fleet Air Defence threat. Its hard to see any of the Chinese or Russian designs being in service, fully trained-up, and at regiment-level establishment levels in that timeframe from what I see of the status quo today.

To be fair though it would be brave stating that -35C would be fully spun up at that point as well. Any determination that a US naval pilot will be at any more of a disadvantage going forwards, than he has been in the recent past, is entirely spurious and a matter of conjecture.

Rii,

Mwah!

Can we then sum up our two positions like this—————-I want our Navy pilots to be the the best fighter possible that technology can provide, and you want to do nothing.

BTW I wonder why what our Navy does to develop a new fighter is any business of someone in the UK?

May 9, 2016 at 1:57 pm in reply to: Why am I not reading about a new generation fighter for the Navy? #2014993

logical1
Participant

I guess the bottom line question is maybe in 7 years would you want to be a Naval Aviator going into a battle or dog fight in an inferior fighter?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 130 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 →