Page 9 – Key Publishing

duotiga

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 284 total)

← 1 2 3 … 8 9 10 … 17 18 19 →

Author

Posts
September 15, 2006 at 12:42 am in reply to: F-16XL VS F-15E!? #2567303

duotiga
Participant

The F-15E has no problems in very low level flight thanks to its LANTIRN system, as long as the speed doesnt exceed 900km/h. More, and it starts getting rough 🙂

is not about avionics and LANTIRN….as i said before the wiing area loading….

September 14, 2006 at 7:19 am in reply to: Super Hornet's Performance!? #2568153

duotiga
Participant

The current price for the Super Hornet is 95 million per plane with the Gowler going for ~105. The same Goverment source put the price @ ~112 million for the F-35C. So, add 555 Super Hornet to the F-35’s numbers and that price would fall…….you also have to consider the saving in Logistics, Maintenance, Support, Infrastructure, etc. etc. Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Super Hornet cost us more in the long run. Which, is typical for the US Goverment and to add insult to injury the Super Hornet will offer less capability! 😮

Fly Navy 😎

all i can say that in future to come for USN the super hornet will be carrying the duties of the current hornet and Lightning superseded together with the role ( in layman term all squadrons will be multirole [VFA]) with Strike as primary role rather than Air Defense ( which i personnally find is a critical fault).

Indeed Super hornet will be saving a lot for the logisitic but in a short term way. The most ideal USN fleet the way it goes now that all will be converted to F-35B/C in future to come…..

September 14, 2006 at 4:01 am in reply to: Super Hornet's Performance!? #2568261

duotiga
Participant

Basically, more Hornets would not be capable of replacing the F-14, A-6, EA-6, S-3 and KA-6(tanking). I agree with ELP in saying that we need an F-22 style fighter on the carriers instead of an all F-35 wing.

is sad that the USN rejected the NATF proposal…..EA-6 replace buy Growler i can understand and accept it….by current Hornets (A+/C/D) cannot really replace the capability of A-6/A-7…though is superseded by Super Hornet

Personnally i feel super hornet is just an interim fighters for the Navy….

September 14, 2006 at 3:38 am in reply to: Who needs JSF when you have SM-36 STALMA #2568291

duotiga
Participant

Macross prawns all of the design 😀

September 12, 2006 at 7:22 am in reply to: F-16XL VS F-15E!? #2570321

duotiga
Participant

But they still accomplish missions flying low dont they?

yes it is but the low-wing area doesnt mean for low level flying……

September 12, 2006 at 7:17 am in reply to: F-16XL VS F-15E!? #2570334

duotiga
Participant

The F-15E was the right choice , twin engined , long ranged , mighty thrust and serious load carrying capability and good low level perfroamance !!!

except for the last one (gd low level performance)…there is reports saying the there is stability prob when flying low level……the wings keep on fluttering…..

September 12, 2006 at 3:57 am in reply to: Tawian F-15? #2570391

duotiga
Participant

Taiwan internal politics has already got problem…..what to expect more????

September 12, 2006 at 3:03 am in reply to: Super Hornet's Performance!? #2570465

duotiga
Participant

The hornet line is indeed closed except for super hornet….

September 12, 2006 at 2:58 am in reply to: Secondhand F-117's for the IDF? #2570470

duotiga
Participant

doubt so….

September 12, 2006 at 2:56 am in reply to: F-16XL VS F-15E!? #2570479

duotiga
Participant

both 😀 but….F-16XL shld be in following requirements

-added CFTs
-IRST
-AESA
-Uprated engines
-52+/60 blk enlarged spine for 2 seaters

September 11, 2006 at 6:01 am in reply to: Rafale out of Norwegian contest #2570970

duotiga
Participant

As far as for Rafale this is only i get frm

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frtypen/FRRafale.htm

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/rafale/

the STOL capability for Rafale is 450-500m depends on weights & loading

September 11, 2006 at 4:25 am in reply to: Rafale out of Norwegian contest #2571004

duotiga
Participant

Which leads me to remind you that you didn’t provide the turnaround time for the Rafale, so any form of comparison is moot from that point of view.

Nic

on the contrary…since the supportive of Rafale is so insist, you shld be able to give me th eans rather than i am th eone give you the figures……….i can only give you Gripen…..

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0007/FR0007e.htm

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avgrpn.html

September 11, 2006 at 12:49 am in reply to: Rafale out of Norwegian contest #2571063

duotiga
Participant

If it allows you to put more gas in your plane to be able to actually reach your target, then why not ? 😉

Nic

not just gas…your startup engine timing is critical also…..else you will be sitting duck…

September 10, 2006 at 1:50 pm in reply to: BAE clinches 2.5 Billion Pound Tornado upgrade deal #2571312

duotiga
Participant

F-15S will be use as carpet bombing while Tornado strategic interdictor?

September 10, 2006 at 1:47 pm in reply to: Rafale out of Norwegian contest #2571321

duotiga
Participant

So turnaround time for a M2k isn’t the same thing as turnaround time for the Gripen? Explain that to me please.

Besides, do you know Rafale’s or Typhoons’ turnaround time? A comparison need you to know the data for all the planes you compare…

Nic

i do not know exact the turnaround timing…but common sense wise….you need to get into the air ASAP once on scramble….do you wish to stay on ground any longer than 10mins? :rolleyes:
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 284 total)

← 1 2 3 … 8 9 10 … 17 18 19 →