dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 4,051 through 4,065 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Sustained turn/roll rates of Cold War fighters #2480821
    MadRat
    Participant

    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.?

    in reply to: Best Cold War Dog Fighter #2481741
    MadRat
    Participant

    The pilot training and the actual real world combat records weren’t in the context of the original post.

    in reply to: How successful was the Harrier? #2481859
    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Best Cold War Dog Fighter #2481862
    MadRat
    Participant

    MiG-29 with IRST and HMS+AA-11 surely.

    ftw In the context of the original question.

    in reply to: Cool paint schemes thread #2482201
    MadRat
    Participant

    http://www.syhartdecal.fr/images/projects/Mirage%20IIIS%20R2311.jpg

    Now that is a cool paint job. Looks like something out of James Bond.

    in reply to: How successful was the Harrier? #2482206
    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: F-18 Hornet #2482358
    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: F-18 Hornet #2483109
    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Sukhoi Swing-Wing Fitters #2483646
    MadRat
    Participant

    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!

    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Best Fighter of the 70s #2483720
    MadRat
    Participant

    [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.

    in reply to: Mythbusting SAM systems #2484822
    MadRat
    Participant

    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?

    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Best Fighter of the 70s #2484831
    MadRat
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 4,051 through 4,065 (of 4,651 total)