Originally posted by WebPilot
Never mind the SHARs! If the Argentinians had gone all out to take out either one of the RN carriers early on in the war, that would have been it, game over. Why they didn’t we can really only guess at, but it was clearly a major strategic oversight.

Could it have been partly the promise that the US would ‘loan’ the UK a Carrier if they lost one/both of theirs? Perhaps they were afraid that that would broaden the war? Even a ‘loaned’ US vessel would change things a bit for the Argentinians, I would think. Just a thought.:confused:

Originally posted by milavia
What about A-6, A-7, F-8? Everyone seems to have forgotten about them. Not saying that it is a good idea, but I am interested to hear your opinions.

How would they perform with engine upgrades, modern radar and nav/attack systems?

:confused:

All the upgrades for those aircraft were thought of, but no one bought them.I’d love to see upgraded models of any of those, but the F-8 the most…:D

Welcome!

I use WinDVD, and it has the ability to capture stills.

Originally posted by SOC
You know what? Here goes. Stupid procurement decisions made (or not made) by the DoD and Congress. Everybody cross your fingers and hope I don’t get fired 😀

The F/A-18E/F. Total cop-out and a significant capability degradation to naval air power when you consider that it is supplanting the F-14.

The F-14D. Killing this program gave us the above P.O.S. The F-14D would have reigned as one of the greatest naval fighters, ever, with improved performance, digital avionics, and now the PGM capability.

The B-2. OK. People who actually know how to use a calculator, exsplain to those idiots named above why the aircraft are so expensive over a 20-aircraft production run (and 1 prototype). This is the ULTIMATE PGM delivery system, and something the USAF with it’s fondness for Global Reach should have gotten more of. Had more emphasis been placed on potential PGM carriage and conventional weapons delivery early on, maybe Congress wouldn’t have viewed it as a Cold-War reliquary nuclear delivery system.

The AGM-86B. Suprised to see this one here? This should have stayed as the AGM-86A. Why? It would have made the next one on the list more bearable as 24 could have been accomodated internally.

The B-1B. Why? Money would have been better spent on the ATB, and we all know how this one turned out for the first few years of it’s service career anyway. Also deserves mention for the asinine idea regarding sending some of them away to the ‘Yard.

The KC-767. ‘Nuff said I think 😀

Hell, that’s only some of the more recent incidents 😀

What about the V-22………:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Flanker_man
You are all assuming that an AWACS is a ‘heavy’ aircraft !!

I’ve just looked up the stats – and an E-2C is actually LIGHTER than a Su-33 !!!

The MTOW for the E-2C is 24,687 kg, the Su-33 is 30,000kg

The next question is – could an E-2C/Yak-44 type AWACS platform take off from a ski-jump – given that it can be ‘held back’ while it runs up to full power the same as the naval Flanker.

The Su-25UTG takes off from the Kuznetsov – and it isn’t exactly a sprightly performer!!

The Russians regularly demo a bog-standard MiG-21UM off a ski-jump from the runway at Zhukovsky – so you don’t need any special airframe to use a ski-jump – and if it is designed properly, it has a gently increasing slope anyway.

One final point – is the AVMF (Russian Naval Aviation) the only user of a ski-jump/hold-back system for conventional aircraft ??

Does this mean that they have the most experience in operational CTOL STOBAR ???

Ken

Is there any problem of prop interference with the ski-jump? Has it been tried by anyone yet? (prop using ski-jump, that is.):confused:

Originally posted by Victor
Actually India has operated CTOL aircraft being launched by cats but that was way back in the day… Seahawk and Alize days…

India still used the Sea Hawks up until 1983 or so, IIRC.