Spreadsheets are easy enough to use for this stuff. What are the best 3-4 altitude intervals one should use for turn rate, roll rate, etc.?
The pilot training and the actual real world combat records weren’t in the context of the original post.
I always wondered if they could cram some of the systems from an ah-1w’s nose including the turret into the Harrier. Kind of an attack helicopter on steroids.
MiG-29 with IRST and HMS+AA-11 surely.
ftw In the context of the original question.
Now that is a cool paint job. Looks like something out of James Bond.
The high territory over the airfield and the likelihood that snipers could ground the Harriers was reason enough to keep them off the island. One sniper given enough time could pretty well deal a decisive blow against a smaller squadron like that.
Vietnam was a tragedy. The U.S. too easily overwhelmed the Vietnamese military in every head to head battle and left the battlefields a wasteland in return. The only way to save Vietnam was to kill every single one that opposed the puppet government. The problem was that the American public didn’t want to spend their gdp proceeds fighting a tragic war. Kind of like how they feel today with so much of their hard work going into Iraq for little to nothing but double speak in return.
Brand new Super Hornets may sustain that kind of abuse for a little while. But history has shown that operating and maintenance costs scale with usage regardless of the platform’s name. The early Tomcats were touted as an advantage in the same way when it first joined the fleet. And then the artificially long service times were used to justify their departure. One day the SH will be the platform they need to justify being in retirement and some new shiny plane will be touted as the best thing since slice bread.
I’m more or less disappointed that they wedged the F-18 into too many roles for its weight class. They could have continued to expand the roles of other platforms without driving the other aircraft makers out of the game. All of the consolidation we see today was due to politics getting in the way of competition.
Imagine if the Sukhoi had been modernized a little bit by the Chinese. Replace the turmansky with a pair of Spey knockoffs and change out the nose. Viola!
Medvedev in control is far more dangerous than Putin. He’s GWB only in Russia. We don’t need any more leaders like that in control of nuclear arsenals ever again. Seriously, arrogance is the downfall of smart fellows like Medvedev. He’d just as soon bury Russia in a new mountain of debt just to have his day in the sun giving that one memorable speech in the history books. So what if it seriously fubars their economy because it was all worth his winning eternal fame.
[B]
This thread was to discuss the best fighter of the 1970’s. The F-106 has some advantages in a few areas over the F-4, but if you take an objective overall analysis of the two types, it’s no secret why the USAF bought the Phantom. The F-106 was too limited in what it could do (i.e. strictly an interceptor reliant on ground-control, no BVR capability) to be considered for mantle of the Air Force’s primary fighter of the 1960’s. The USAF needed something more advanced and more versatile and that’s what they got out of the Phantom.
When was bvr used in combat prior to this past decade? SOP didn’t allow it within regards to U.S. pilots. Convair did offer a few proposals to the USAF for new versions, including a two-seater that used the aim-47 missile of the yf-12a and the developmental radar from the F-108 program. The problem was that Convair boxed themselves into the interceptor role for the airframe and never were effectively able to move it into other roles.
NORAD was a money pit if you followed its history and F.U.D. drove its budget. Don’t get me wrong, it was an enigmatic organization. But hindsight has proven that most of the antagonisms behind its evolution through the years never really existed in the sense that people within the organization did advertise.
Its laughable that you would stick to the stockpiled gear for refueling story. The Backfire has a terrible mission rate. If they could hardly keep it flying at a dependable rate what makes you think they could have overhauled the whole lot into an air refuel certified fleet virtually overnight?
Nuclear war is over-rated. Life as we know will not die, it will simply change. The real change to the world is surviving in the tattered ruins. But like every change there will be some evolution in the social structure that will resurface and undoubtedly be far stronger than what it replaced.
What part of “chance to develop the F-106” did you miss? The F-4 only went through three revisions before it finally evolved into a fighting machine. The F-106 was given band aid revisions over its 28 year history. Hell, its fire control got minor tweaks/changes to it about every week it seems like. But the overall system changed very little. Well, it did get a gun before the 70’s, so perhaps that was a big change.
The F-4 never replaced the F-106 because it simply didn’t offer any new capabilities. They probably should of sent the F-106 to Vietnam to carry out the same escort missions that the F-4 was performing. At least the F-106 was available in numbers and would of substantially bolstered the South’s security until the arrival of the refined F-4 models. There is one job the F-4 did finally replace the F-106 in – target duty.