dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,316 through 3,330 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Yet another F-35 thread #2405197
    MadRat
    Participant

    So the F-35C – because it’s been neglected to this point – had it’s price spike to reflect setting up the lead in to the prototype. That’s a cruddy way to paint it as a failure considering it had relatively mild goals to hit compared to the F-35B program.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2405750
    MadRat
    Participant

    Thanks for the candid response. I too pondered if the air-ram powered the barrel rotation. If the bus that fires off weapons has enough juice to ignite rocket propellant it probably had the power to do either job, but the air-ram would have taken away some of the power surge out of activating it. It probably is a pretty impressive capacitor to provide enough impulse to kick start that much weight.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2406384
    MadRat
    Participant

    Did you use the air-ram powered M61 pod or the electric? If you used both how did they compare?

    in reply to: Yet another F-35 thread #2407055
    MadRat
    Participant

    What drove the surge in the F-35C cost?

    in reply to: 4.99 generation fighter #2409442
    MadRat
    Participant

    If you used the Chinese interpretation of generations – when it was acquired, not necessarily technology steps – the one could argue Su-35 is at minimum 5th generation and PAKFA is sixth. Generations for the Russians and Chinese do not sync with the American interpretation.

    If you took the aforementioned tact and applied it to UK aircraft is it up to five with the Typhoon?

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2409593
    MadRat
    Participant
    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2410019
    MadRat
    Participant

    Amazing how few pictures are out there with gun pods, ram powered or electric.
    http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/201-300/walk251_SUU-23A_gun_pod/images_Chris_Hughes/SUU-23A_02.jpg
    http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc4/ikar_photos/scan0074-4.jpg
    http://www.air-and-space.com/lukeafb/811229hl.jpg
    http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b264/garysted/CNV00015.jpg

    I’m surprised there isn’t five installed on an F-4E/S just to show off. The sound of six M61’s would be bone chilling.

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2004506
    MadRat
    Participant

    If they get it going, what does this mean with regards to Taiwan? Is it a game changer in any shape or form?

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2413491
    MadRat
    Participant

    Thanks for the replies, alfakilo! They explain a lot more than what else has been said. *cough*

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2413995
    MadRat
    Participant

    So basically the difference was the tilt towards the wingman being a defender or attacker? That’s kind of interesting, although the terms sound generally identical. If you have the time maybe you could clarify some things. So you’d more use something like a pincer in the DA, but in the LD something with a trailer like a lead-around? How would a 2v1 bracket fit into this?

    in reply to: RAF Valley 23 March 2010 #2414289
    MadRat
    Participant

    I take it the second Hawk trainer was equipped for teaching/training how to use AMRAAM?

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2416994
    MadRat
    Participant

    Don’t you mean WW 2, which the allies adapted, this looks like evolution.

    I thought they came up with gruppes, staffes, and swarmes during WW1. Pretty sure they had rottes, kettes, and paired tactics in the ’30s.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2417206
    MadRat
    Participant

    So, Zipp0, that was a ‘yes’. Alfakilo, could you elaborate the fine differences between a loose duece and a fluid two? Is either one related to German formation theory from WW1?

    in reply to: F-22 cost #2418749
    MadRat
    Participant

    You do remember the impetus of the LWF program, right? We had to counter the huge numerical superiority of the Soviets/Warsaw Pact. Only later did we find out it was largely a lie to boost spending. But no politician at the time would have publicly tanked the funding drive behind the LWF program. Everyone benefited.

    in reply to: Is the history of Taiwan coming to an end ? #2418985
    MadRat
    Participant

    Surely the British ould sell Taiwan weapons systems in anger for the killing of the mentally ill man earlier this year. This would allow Britain to call it quits with china after this as we get contracts for Taiwan and the general public see that things are being harsh on china in responce.

    Two weeks since this quip and it could work in the current screw-China atmosphere across the globe. They certainly cannot help their cause with the current policies in place. Google may not be the only team to retract to the safeguards of doing business in Hong Kong, safely outside the rat-ship.

    China is ultra-paranoid for a reason. Its a trial balloon. Like any balloon, its waiting to pop.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,316 through 3,330 (of 4,651 total)