dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,451 through 3,465 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Best naval fighter of the mid-1960s? #2397180
    MadRat
    Participant

    I like the high altitude performance of the regular Tiger. In hindsight the true swept wings really gave fighters some altitude if they had an engine that could handle it. Coupled to an active guidance missile with some range (like aim-120c) they could still pose serious problems to a lot of modern fighters that operate at much lower altitudes. Back then not so much of a threat unless they wanted to come down to play.

    in reply to: COIN aircraft carrier #2008571
    MadRat
    Participant

    Operationally it carried up to 24 by this text. As a transport it carried 40 in the hanger and 50 on deck. So you caught me being liberal on the interpretation. 🙂

    Source: Squadron-Signal 4009 – Warships in Action – Escort Carriers (1996)

    in reply to: Best naval fighter of the mid-1960s? #2397229
    MadRat
    Participant

    Let’s say the F-11F-1F wins the competition over the F-8. For fraternal reasons that means they never put an order in for the A-6. What competing design gets built in the A-6’s place?

    in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2397233
    MadRat
    Participant

    One has to remember the EF-18G is more restricted by range than any other Hornet model. Those self-powered jammers have to suck fuel to operate. Luckily they don’t run the whole mission.

    in reply to: 6th generation combat aircraft? #2397337
    MadRat
    Participant

    Whereas the slightly older technology could be dropping dumb bombs on them for much cheaper on a hourly basis. The WoT needs to be economized to a sustainable level. I say bring back the 2000hp-class 12-ton propeller-driven 1300-mile round trip warbirds and infuse them with a side-mounted M197 (3-barrel M61 derivative gun); a pair of pylons using the UWH system (Umbilical Weapon Harnesses) assemblies under each wing, and both an underbelly and tail-mounted versions of the Mast Mounted Sight (MMS) complete with video recording capability. Each UWH would hold up to four Hellfires, an M261 19-tube launcher for Hydra 70 (70mm FFARs); or ATAS (Stinger).

    in reply to: COIN aircraft carrier #2008586
    MadRat
    Participant

    Ja Worsley –

    Good information.

    The Bouge class of steam-powered transport hulls converted in quantity to Atlantic CVE’s is roughly where I originally seemed to draw my figures from. Approximately 500 feet long, 70 foot beam, 23 foot draft, 7000 tons empty, 13000 tons fully equipped, 15 knot cruise, 8000nm range, flight hanger for 40 warbirds, decks used to transport 50 warbirds in a pinch, and light armament for self defense.

    Ja Worsley’s idea of a catamaran would fill the role nicely.

    in reply to: Best naval fighter of the mid-1960s? #2397512
    MadRat
    Participant

    The Super Tiger simply came along too late. To be sure, the J-79 was almost a generation more advanced than the J-57, but the J-65 was very poor engine indeed and ruined the credibility of the Tiger to begin with.

    The F11F-1F Super Tiger was with a J79. Did you mean to imply it used the J65? The J65 was the licensed Sapphire, same jet used in the Starfighter prototype. It went into the B-57 and Skyhawk, too. Considerably lighter engine than what went into the production Starfighter and Super Tiger prototypes.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2397937
    MadRat
    Participant

    designed by MIG….

    Or was it Yakovlev? 😉

    MadRat
    Participant

    At least post it brightened up with gamma… and choose a non-NSFW host 😛

    in reply to: Best naval fighter of the mid-1960s? #2398540
    MadRat
    Participant

    F-11 was a cool looking plane. Not sure it was the best, but it should have been procured over its rivals like the F-104.

    in reply to: What high intensity threats exist? #2399236
    MadRat
    Participant

    The most likely event I see for a large war is a combination of water and food depravation of a country on gigantic proportions. China, India, Japan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and lower Africa (in general) being the most vulnerable. The militarization of North Korea would look silly in comparison to any of the big countries like India, Russia, or China get desperate. On the other hand, if it was China they’d use the puppet regime of North Korea to spread the pain long before they’d enter into conflict. They might even militarize African countries to distract the western hemisphere…

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode X #2400346
    MadRat
    Participant

    Primitive line art and what its based off.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2400463
    MadRat
    Participant

    Well, I’d wager the guy who originally made them had *some* insight of some kind… :rolleyes:

    My revision of the PAK-FA wasn’t too far off:

    Your comparison
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=181239&d=1264854867
    Mine
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=166539&d=1224952103http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=181250&d=1264873503

    in reply to: COIN aircraft carrier #2008701
    MadRat
    Participant

    Charles de Gaulle operated up to SS6. I think operations up to SS5 would be a minimum to suffice.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2401055
    MadRat
    Participant

    Something bothers me about the video. It just doesn’t match the flight photos. The engines are smaller in the video, not a lot, but they seem to be slightly different. The tails don’t match. The video machine looks rougher than the one in the photos. Could the video be some kind of full scale mockup prior to the actual flying machine?

Viewing 15 posts - 3,451 through 3,465 (of 4,651 total)