dark light

Arthur

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,301 through 3,315 (of 6,424 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-111 replacement? #2644557
    Arthur
    Participant

    I just can’t wait until the wisdoms of Carlo Kopp are quoted in this thread…

    in reply to: Cancelled projects #2644563
    Arthur
    Participant

    That proves it then. If you actually lived through that era and remember it (i’m from 1974, which is probably ‘mid-1970s’, my memories only reliably start in the mid-1980s) then 1983 must definately precede the late 1980s.

    That is, if 1973 precedes both the late 1980s as 1983.

    in reply to: Cancelled projects #2644572
    Arthur
    Participant

    I think 1983 was before the late eighties, so i reckon the AMX was first… The AMX was a mostly Italian design though, just under 30% of the design was Embraer’s responsibility.

    in reply to: Hurricane set to hit MacDill head on….. #2646331
    Arthur
    Participant

    Good luck!

    in reply to: Hurricane set to hit MacDill head on….. #2646363
    Arthur
    Participant

    Is MacDill AFB actually evacuated? Some years ago Homestead AFB was because of a hurricane, which made it a convenient base for closure. It’s not that i expect the same for MacDill, but then again…

    Thinking about it: Homestead and Clark on the Phillipines both had their fate sealed because of natural events: Homestead because of a hurricane, and Clark because of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Are any other bases ever closed because of (or with a little help from) disasters?

    in reply to: RAF Eurofighter cannon news #2646886
    Arthur
    Participant

    It’s not really the gun that costs the money, it’s using that gun.
    With the guns fitted as ballast only, the MOD is not going to have money spent on ammo, not going to pay for flying hours doing gunnery training, not having to clean up black sludge around the gun nozzle after firing a few rounds, not having to check for structural problems after a large number of rounds fired.

    Best of all, is that guns-for-ballast can eventually be rewired.

    in reply to: Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy – new series #1968040
    Arthur
    Participant

    The books are absolutely brilliant. I’ve got all five of them in one volume – even though the introductory bit says it’s a trilogy in four parts.

    It gets more confusing after that.

    in reply to: The Su-27IB/34 confusion continues #2647192
    Arthur
    Participant

    The V-VS designation has always been Su-27IB, as a fighter-bomber version (Istrebitel’ -Bombardirovchik) of the Su-27. Just like the official military designation for the Su-33 was Su-27K, and the Su-35/37 was originally ment to enter service as the Su-27M.

    However, back in the 1990s when the Sukhoi marketing machine began rolling, they started giving totally new designations to aircraft that are nothing more than updates of existing airframes. Eventually, the military followed. First the Navy started calling their Flankers Su-33, and the Su-27Ms now flying from Kubinka are called Su-35s now. With the flatnose-Flanker now entering service, i reckon it’s time to follow Sukhoi’s desgination for this variant as well.

    Be careful in giving Sukhoi’s marketing names for production machines to the prototypes though. One of the T8M protos (so that’s the humpbacked second-generation Frogfoot) was displayed subsequently as Su-25TM, Su-25TK, Su-34 (yes, that was before they decided to relabel this one as the Su-27IB) and Su-39. Likewise, calling T10V-1 (bort 42, the first flatface-Flanker) a Su-27IB when it never was ment to represent the full production standard doesn’t make sense at all.

    in reply to: Indian Defence News thread #2647408
    Arthur
    Participant

    Well, considering the Hawks in the RAF are almost 30 years old now, and have already gone through both wing and fuselage changes, it’s not surprising the Hawks India is going to get are far more capable.

    in reply to: MiG-23/27 Flogger and MiG-25/31 #2647411
    Arthur
    Participant

    Here’s some more air-to-air pics. MiG-23M, MiG-25PD and some sunshine from the rear of a MiG-25RBsomething (the latter is most likely not air-to-air, but still nice and sunny).

    in reply to: Best/worst films you've seen this year #1968088
    Arthur
    Participant

    I think she does.

    Also, the stupider the film, the lower the standards for visual compensation. Although i’m not really in favour of deflating the definition of VC.

    in reply to: MiG-23/27 Flogger and MiG-25/31 #2647585
    Arthur
    Participant

    Information on Floggers and Foxbats/hounds difficult to find? Not really, although complete production lists aren’t publicly available yet.

    Any information in particulair you were looking for?

    in reply to: Cancelled projects #2647596
    Arthur
    Participant

    You mean the Tu-91 Bychok?

    in reply to: Best/worst films you've seen this year #1968222
    Arthur
    Participant

    I really liked Once upon a time in Mexico. A great ending to Rodriguez’ Mariachi-trilogy, and one of the few films in which i didn’t think Johnny Depp was an annoying nuisance.

    I was totally bored by King Arthur. I spent half the movie thinking of schemes in order to get one of the film-T-shirs which the people at the cinema were wearing. So despite the movie being crap (even though Keira Knightley does offer lots of visual compensation), i’m now really happy with my King Arthur – Warrior, Legend, King T-shirt 😀

    in reply to: IAF and Nuclear Strike / Mirage-2000-V #2647902
    Arthur
    Participant

    PAFfan and Sameer, please do continue with your whining if you want to see this thread closed.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,301 through 3,315 (of 6,424 total)