dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,136 through 3,150 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafale vs Gripen!! #2408330
    MadRat
    Participant

    If Taiwan could get Meteor it would all but cinch the idea of maintaining air superiority between it’s own airspace and the airspace up to the mainland. Definitely should make a purchase of European fighters plausible. Who wants to tick off the mainland with a sales offer?

    in reply to: T-38 replacement #2408752
    MadRat
    Participant

    If anyone liked the civil Javelin design then they should have loved the Bede BD10 before it.

    Javelin
    http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/0582005/bpictures/Javelin.jpg
    Bede BD10
    http://www.ae.utexas.edu/design/subjet/images/bd10-1.jpg

    I think an F125-powered T-50 sized trainer in the 12,000-pound class:

    General characteristics

    * Crew: 2: student and instructor
    * Length: 46 ft 4.5 in (14.14 m)
    * Wingspan: 25 ft 3 in (7.7 m)
    * Height: 12 ft 10.5 in (3.92 m)
    * Wing area: 170 ft² (16 m²)
    * Empty weight: 7,000 lb (3,175 kg)
    * Max takeoff weight: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg)
    * Internal fuel: 677 US gal (2,563 L)
    * Powerplant: 1× Honeywell F125 afterburning turbojet
    o Dry thrust: 31 kN (7,000 lbf)
    o Thrust with afterburner: 53.4 kN (12,000 lbf)

    Performance

    * Maximum speed: Mach 1.3 (858 mph, 1,381 km/h)
    * Range: 1,150 mi (1,850 km)
    * Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,240 m)
    * Rate of climb: 30,000 ft/min (152.4 m/s)
    * Thrust/weight: 0.6

    Armament

    * Guns: 1× 3-barreled 20 mm M197 Gatling gun
    * Hard Points: load up to 2,275kg (approx. 5,000 lbs.)
    o wingtip, one each: AIM-9 Sidewinder; or one 378L (100-US gal) drop tank
    o underwing, three each wing: various bombs, rockets, and/or missiles, including up to two 1249L (330-US gal) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks
    o centerline fuselage, one each: travel pod, various bombs, rockets, and/or missiles; or one 1,040L (275-US gal) drop tank

    in reply to: Soviet Airforces combat tactics in the 80s #2408926
    MadRat
    Participant

    Where did the GCI of the Soviets allow for free lancing? Air destroyers were but an overlap of capabilities in their network. Without the ground-centric chain of command the fratricides would have been too common. The soviets were centralized around missile defenses, therefore the missiles were pivotal. Anyone that wanted to be successful career-wise knew missiles were the key to promotion. (And the most important commands were in the rocket forces and ground troops, but that’s a separate topic.) People often make the mistaken notion that SAM missiles were integrated into their rocket forces. They were apart of the air defense forces, one notch above the ‘air forces’ themselves.

    MadRat
    Participant

    ART/S would look pretty good if it maybe in the form of CFT’s, automatically load balanced, and held 1,200-gallons between the two tanks. Then again, if you’re going to compromise some more of its agility then you better increase its situational awareness with streamlined IRST cameras mounted in the CFT’s one each front and back at 45º angles to give a near 360º field of vision for automated scanning for air/missile threats.

    in reply to: Soviet Airforces combat tactics in the 80s #2410255
    MadRat
    Participant

    Instead of knocking the Wikipedia, how about you geniuses update the wikis to be better? I hear criticism of the Wikipedia by people that are too lazy to look things up for themselves, but are too busy to contribute. Funny how that works.

    in reply to: Fantasy fighters #2410303
    MadRat
    Participant

    Vulcan is one of those planes that just didn’t catch the imagination of everyone, but for whom it did it was magnificent. Kind of like the EE Lightning, Saab Viggen, Blackburn Buccaneer, and some of the other unique planes out there. They had unique roles that were never quite replaced and probably would have been relevant if not for the neglect shown to them.

    Some of the designs had room to evolve. I always liked the idea of the EE Lightning with streamline-mounted Skyflash and y-rack Sidewinders on the chins. The Viggen with Skyflash and a better radar. The Bucc with Pave Tack, and perhaps later the LANTIRN. You could have fixed a lot of these shortcomings with new equipment rather than new airframes.

    in reply to: Huns in the 70's & 80's – 2nd #2411018
    MadRat
    Participant

    Amazing how the F-8 dwarfed the F-100. I never realized the disparity there.

    in reply to: New F-35 News thread #2411477
    MadRat
    Participant

    I think the natural evolution is a towed TADIRCM. Without a towed option you might as well broadcast your position. It’s contrary to the rest of the design to use TADIRCM, considering the F-35 is supposed to play a silent service role.

    in reply to: Huns in the 70's & 80's – 2nd #2411536
    MadRat
    Participant

    Good thread premise. I always wondered how well the Hun would have performed in an aggressor squadron. It was about as close as we had to the Russian swept wing fighters. The only role I’ve really read about was the ground pounding role. Surely it was good for other uses?

    in reply to: Soviet Airforces combat tactics in the 80s #2412154
    MadRat
    Participant

    Add on the aggressive counter air role over enemy territory its a no-brainer where it leads.

    MadRat
    Participant

    Publicly the strike package will go the long way. Privately the strike package will go the direct route and hit very hard, surprising analysts at how they were able to pull off such a HUGE stunt like that. It’s never done using the route you hear about afterwards. That’s just P-R for the sake of their neighbors. Appearances is very important in that part of the world.

    in reply to: Fantasy Airforce #2416163
    MadRat
    Participant

    Interesting choice – how about the Vought YA-7F, as I assume A-7 would need quite a few upgrades?

    In the roles it would play I’d say K-I-S-S. Its not meant to be the high tech fighter listed for other roles.

    in reply to: Fantasy Airforce #2416953
    MadRat
    Participant

    (Fixed Wing)

    All-forces Novice Trainer: The Old Jenny biplane
    All-forces Basic Trainer: NDN Turbo Firecracker (upgraded to newer PT6A turboprop)
    Carrier-landing Medium Trainer: Douglas A-1K Skyraider (A-1J modified to a two-seater)
    AF Novice Jet Trainer: AMX International AMX
    AF Advanced Trainer: KAI T-50 Golden Eagle
    Navy Novice Jet Trainer: Douglas TA-4M Super Skyhawk derivative (F404-powered)
    Navy Advanced Trainer: Ling-Temco-Vought TA-7 Corsair II (T41 powered)

    AF Lightweight Fighter: Northrop F-20C Tigershark (modernized F-20A)
    AF Middleweight Fighter: Mitsubishi/Lockheed Martin F-16J Golden Falcon
    AF Heavyweight Fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II
    AF Air Supremacy Fighter: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
    AF Bombtruck: Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II (T41 powered)
    AF Medium Bomber: Avro Vulcan (modernized engines & electronics)
    AF Heavy Bomber: B-1B Bomber
    AF Light Transport: Embraer KC-390 (15-20 tons)
    AF Medium Transport: Kawasaki C-2 (30-40 tons)
    AF Heavy Transport: Antonov An-124 Ruslan (100-150 tons; westernized)
    AF Oversize Transport: Antonov An-225 Mriya (150-250 tons; westernized)

    Army Corps Bombtruck: Fairchild-Republic A-10C
    Army Corps FAC: Douglas A-1K Skyraider (A-1J modified to a two-seater)
    Army Light Transport: Alenia C-27J Spartan (10-12 tons)
    Army Medium Transport: Airbus A400M (30-40 tons)
    Army Heavy Transport: Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (50-80 tons)

    Navy Lightweight Fighter: Douglas A-4M Super Skyhawk derivative (F404-powered)
    Navy Middleweight Fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II
    Navy Multipurpose Fighter: Boeing EA-18G Growler
    Navy Bombtruck: Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II (T41 powered)
    Navy Light Transport: Grumman C-2 Greyhound
    Navy Medium Transport: Alenia C-27J Spartan (10-12 tons)
    Navy Carrier AEW: Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye
    Navy Maritime Patrol: Boeing P-8 Poseidon

    MadRat
    Participant

    I think the problem is most people dont understand that Taliban and Al Qaeda are completely different, with different command structures and goals. Al Qaeda is more global focused where as Traditionally Taliban only care about AF-PAk region.

    QFT. So much confusion by the general public over Afghanistan, Iraq, Al Queda, and the Taliban.

    BTW – If Israel strikes Iran there is always the retaliation they will have to suffer from the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Every escalation of that conflict just further radicalizes the population of their northern neighbor. Its sad to see the transformation of Lebanon in the past thirty years. Its yet another tender box near them waiting to explode.

    in reply to: Romania cannot afford buying F-16 jets #2417372
    MadRat
    Participant

    The transition is probably whats killing it. You have to have cash on a time table, which is what they aren’t apparently willing to commit right now.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,136 through 3,150 (of 4,651 total)