dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,691 through 3,705 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Tornado F3's What to do with them? #2442081
    MadRat
    Participant

    Wasn’t an F3 one of the hapless victims of a Patriot?

    in reply to: Tornado F3's What to do with them? #2442898
    MadRat
    Participant

    Canada flying them would have some kind of romantic feel to it. Almost like the two countries are symbiotic, like they should be inherently linked together.

    in reply to: Tornado F3's What to do with them? #2443090
    MadRat
    Participant

    It’s a shame Japan doesn’t make an offer for them. They could retire the F-4 and be ahead overall until F-35 reaches production.

    These Tornadoes are nice planes. Its ridiculous that they are being scrapped let alone replaced so early in their lifespans. Its no wonder you people in the UK are so much in the hole when it comes to defense spending.

    in reply to: KC-777 (again) and LPAT #2443228
    MadRat
    Participant

    I really don’t like the safety aspect of a twin-engine heavily fuel-laden tanker. The KC-10A, with its third engine, is not such a bad compromise. But after this last crash of the Brazilian airliner it makes me cringe to think people trust a twin-engine airplane to be ultimately reliable. Three engines should be the minimum requirement.

    in reply to: Tornado F3's What to do with them? #2443291
    MadRat
    Participant

    Offer them to other countries for sale or lease. It’s not like they are obsolete. I could see Australia or Canada leasing them for air defence.

    in reply to: Super Hornet — will it become an export success? #2443641
    MadRat
    Participant

    People around here seem to forget that the best option for those countries not offered participation in the F-35 program is going to be F-15 derivatives for decades to come. The Super Hornet had better get some additional foreign orders or it’s future is decided by default.

    in reply to: Massive BAE bribering swiss TV report #2443671
    MadRat
    Participant

    If the so called “international investigators” (read “EADS” parent countries) do find evidence then this could be bad for the EU in general. Its never a good thing to throw mud at your fellow voluntary members.

    in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2031876
    MadRat
    Participant

    I’ve got a relative getting ready to deploy again on the Nimitz. He sleeps well at night. You don’t get much safer than that ship. ESSM is but one layer in the defense, with it overlapped by three other systems not including the airborne components. And with each one specialized for an extreme there is an awfully good chance it will do its job even in a hypothetical saturation attack.

    in reply to: Super Hornet — will it become an export success? #2444159
    MadRat
    Participant

    It would of been nice to see the AN/APG-71’s from the retired F-14D’s at least offered to Australia for their F-111 fleet. It would have added a lot of capability to the F-111.

    in reply to: Airborne Laser Completes Laser Ground Tests #2444759
    MadRat
    Participant

    Gyro stabilized platforms hanging underneath would be able to shift with the relative position changes, plus you can always build in safeguards that talk at the speed of light. I’d be more concerned with missing a target and wondering where all that energy really went.

    in reply to: Gripen NG beats SU-35 in a2a #2444837
    MadRat
    Participant

    Your return is going to also be shaped relative to the exposure of the radiation source and its path. No matter how good you build a stealth fighter there is always going to be that sweet spot in the radiation wave that will reflect back. You really are limited to hoping your stealth features minimize that reflection in such a way your opponent’s software ignores the return pattern. But there is always going to be a return, even in the perfect stealth solutions.

    in reply to: Airborne Laser Completes Laser Ground Tests #2444846
    MadRat
    Participant

    The handicap of lasers is its limitations as a line of sight weapon. I imagine they should be able to accurately steer a ship mounted laser with a helicopter-mounted reflector of some type. Hell, maybe even using a fixed-wing or balloon mounted reflector. Instantaneous destruction of a foe with lasers is going to be awfully tempting for the wet brass to use them in vain.

    in reply to: Super Hornet — will it become an export success? #2444851
    MadRat
    Participant

    I’m sure it all boils down to the axiom about too much of a good thing is bad for you. Adding the key features of stealth have a structural cost let alone the simpler issues of strapping on more RAM. It all boils down to a balance of benefit and cost. You are going to justify a hell of a lot more stealth in a twin engine jet than you are in a single engine jet. Costs will escalate accordingly, but its sure a lot more room to grow when you have the larger frame to begin with. This is why those same stealth features won’t be justified in the more cost-effective and tiny fighters.

    in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2032257
    MadRat
    Participant

    I doubt that a modern aircraft is flyable after a real hit by an AAM or SAM.
    Especially in carrier operations you rather dumb it before risking a crash landing on a carrier.

    The control surfaces are maintained more often with today’s aircraft. Think about it, the fly by wire is more likely to survive the hit than mechanical hydraulics assisted controls. Control ability is key to making it back, let alone keeping in the air.

    in reply to: Could/Would GE/RR self-fund the F136? #2444854
    MadRat
    Participant

    What about the A-12 was untenable with today’s technology?

Viewing 15 posts - 3,691 through 3,705 (of 4,651 total)