dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 4,336 through 4,350 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued…… #2541814
    MadRat
    Participant

    As oil price increases so does the ability of the Russia executive to consolidate his power politically and militarily. You eliminate the high price of oil and you sink Russia. Unfortunately you also elevate China all that much more. So we are caught between two unalike arch enemies to the west, both vying for their share of the world. A united europe and north america is the only hope of keeping the world out of another widespread war.

    I don’t see oil losing much value. Expect big ticket items to continue in Russian circles as they swim in the cash.

    in reply to: F-16XL #2544200
    MadRat
    Participant

    Since the F-16XL was supposed to retain its lightweight appeal it would never have been in the class of a twin engine fighter plane like the Hornet, Mirage 4000, or EFA. But the difference between the fighters was probably not enough to justify all the extra expense in infrastructure and labour.

    Don’t forget that the Rafale emerged out of a more conservative approach to the Mirage 4000, with the addiiton of new technology in affordable measures. I can’t imagine the Mirage 4000 being better than the Rafale in any way but perhaps maximum takeoff weight.

    in reply to: F-16XL #2544378
    MadRat
    Participant

    Mirage 4000 may have been impressive but it was up against the F-15 and didn’t match the latter in ability yet somehow managed to outpace it in cost.

    in reply to: Putin cans CFE #2544397
    MadRat
    Participant

    Russia should mobilize all their tanks and planes from storage so they can burn all that extra gas they are exporting for cash. That would send the West a message he’s serious. Oh, wait, the Chinese and Europeans are the ones buying up that excess right now… awwww, the good ole days when the world was dysfunctional.

    in reply to: Heavy Jet Transports #2544742
    MadRat
    Participant

    MTOW is 210 tons with 60 tons being payload. I would assume it would really depend upon the type of load, but if it could be spread and balanced properly they could probably overload the aircraft with 20 tons less fuel and 20 tons too much payload. It can certainly land with 20 tons of fuel not burnt, so it should able to land with 80 tons.

    Unfortunately the ability to safely carry the extra 20 tons is more dependent on the ability for the wing spar and fuselage to carry the load than a simple matter of offloading fuel.

    in reply to: F-16XL #2545703
    MadRat
    Participant

    There must of been some merit in the design as the Tejas uses some of the same essential ideas.

    I would think the plane was underpowered for its wing area. If they’d moved to a single F101 or – better yet – a pair of F404’s it might have passed muster.

    in reply to: Heavy Jet Transports #2546251
    MadRat
    Participant

    Everyone does realize the IL-76 and C-17 are two completely different classes of air lifter? Comparing them is like comparing A400 and C-130….or C-130 and C-27………….or 130 and 160.

    Yes, but the US could use a heavy plain-jane airlifter at the IL-76’s cost. Its a shame we overengineer every damn piece of hardware just so the cost skyrockets out of control.

    in reply to: World's best fighters #2546256
    MadRat
    Participant

    Forgive him, english is not his first language. I do like his research skills in a lot of threads.

    in reply to: Myasishchev Bison #2546261
    MadRat
    Participant

    Thanks for the video links. I’ve never seen actual footage of either bomber in flight, only in pics. It was a joy to see.

    in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2546992
    MadRat
    Participant

    If it hadn’t been for the oil crunch at the time it would of been affordable. Think of world events at the time that thwarted its introduction.

    in reply to: Myasishchev Bison #2546996
    MadRat
    Participant

    If its nose-down on takeoff then it either must have incredibly low wing loading or it is using the shape of its fuselage for lift. I’d think that to be unusual as a design; its not like its a tiny front propeller-driven piper cub where nose-down lift is by design.

    in reply to: World's best fighters #2547096
    MadRat
    Participant

    The USAF was and still to a very limited extent an operator of F-5’s, it just never used them in tactical squadrons.

    in reply to: Defence funding to 3% of GDP #2547273
    MadRat
    Participant

    And here I thought it was a petition to see american spending decrease threefold.

    in reply to: World's best fighters #2547477
    MadRat
    Participant

    Nobody said F-5’s were MiG-23’s main threat, in fact nobody even said anything remotely to that fact.

    Second, Vietnam inherited some F-5A’s, F-5B’s, and just under a dozen converted F-5A’s that were given temporary F-5C designations. The difference from the A- to C- model was an inflight refuelling probe, armor on the underside, a targeting sight for help in aiming freefall bombs, and the ability to drop external fuel tanks. The F-5E missed the Vietnam war, not entering service until it was too late.

    edit: In F-5 Tigers Over Vietnam by Anthony J. Tambini, he said that F-5E’s were actually being used in Vietnam, 27 captured, and nine later used for the defense of the capital city of Hanoi because they were the most sophisticated aircraft they could muster.

    in reply to: The end of the interceptor? #2547720
    MadRat
    Participant

    Or perhaps people are just forgetting that laser beam generators on 747’s are true interceptors in the sense.

Viewing 15 posts - 4,336 through 4,350 (of 4,651 total)