dark light

seahawk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 3,269 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • seahawk
    Participant

    I actually wrote the same basically.

    seahawk
    Participant

    As it was later than the MiG-17 or the F-86, it had better flight characteristics and easier handling for the time, which should have been an advantage during air combat.

    in reply to: Norwegian Instructor Lies about F-35 BFM Performance #2188392
    seahawk
    Participant

    At airshows you rarely pull max G, because if you plan on doing it, you have no room for corrections. Even the 9G turns the F-16s are doing, 9g are only applied when either climbing into the the vertical or for turns that turn the plane away from the crowd.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2220278
    seahawk
    Participant

    Problems confirmed by Austria, Germany and the UK (via BAe Sytems)

    in reply to: SCOTTISH AIR FORCE #2223886
    seahawk
    Participant

    I think it is simple. NATO has an interested that the airspace is policed, well Scotland could allow them to do so. There is no need for Scottish armed forces. The money can be better spent on other projects and not on some elitist flying club.

    in reply to: Bad decisions by the Pentagon #2223925
    seahawk
    Participant

    The USN knows what LCS is good for – exactly what they designed it to be good for.
    And one thing that is NOT is being a conventional frigate.

    Of course, some people (like the one I am replying to) refuse to accept the USN’s intended use/missions for LCS and incorrectly claim that it has no mission, etc.

    So it was pure joy and happiness with the LCS that started the Small Surface Combatant program? I will not derail this thread by pointing out all the nice things that have been said about the LCS in the last 2-3 years, but I still think there are some indications that the Navy does not really have a role for them.

    in reply to: Bad decisions by the Pentagon #2224378
    seahawk
    Participant

    The biggest problems is the failure to keep the wishes of the armed forces under control. When the USMC wanted to VTOL F-35 one should have asked them what they want to do with it. Operate this very expensive aircraft from forward positions open to mortar or sapper attack? Attack high value targets from LHDs?
    Same with the Comanche, one should have asked the Army why the new OH-58 needed to be more expensive than the AH-64.
    Same with the Navy, one should have asked what the LCS would be good for?
    Same with the Air Force on should have asked why they need F-35s for air policing the US.

    seahawk
    Participant

    And all this mattered little for the Cold War. No fighter aircraft would be circling the FOB to hunt for helicopters and few helicopters could hope to survive crossing the FOB. And there comes the difference in doctrine. The US believed that the USAF could open gaps in the defences of the WarPac, so that attack helicopters could exploit the gaps and cross behind enemy lines. The rest of NATO favoured a more defensive doctrine, which meant helicopters were to stay behind friendly lines and move in the way of the WarPac attacks and blunt them together with ground forces. Later even the US believed that this would not work and added the OH-58D as scouts for the attack helicopters, which would be used as launch plattforms for ATGMs, launching behind friendly lines.
    Catching Hinds was the domain of the ground attack planes, like the G.91, Jaguar or A-10.

    seahawk
    Participant

    For what would Germany have needed an attack helicopter? The PAH-1 was the most mobile ATGM system in the Bundeswehr. And that was their job, fill the gaps in the defence and hit the armoured spearheads of the Red Army. They would stay behind the FOB and close in like very fast and highly mobile cars. The dash to the attack position would be flown at 1-3m height.

    in reply to: Future Light Attack – Textron Scorpion #2286306
    seahawk
    Participant

    8″ Gavin fire support

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2287587
    seahawk
    Participant

    Are they really saying that the present Eurofighter doesn’t have “the sort of “knife-fight in a phone box turning” capability enjoyed by rivals such as the F/A 18E/F or LM F 18″?

    Not to mention the Rafale.

    Nic

    Is that new? Eurofighter has been beaten in dog fights by everything from F-16 to F-18 to MiG-29s.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2290434
    seahawk
    Participant

    Dropping T1 makes sense. I am waiting for the other users to follow.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2292107
    seahawk
    Participant

    Such pieces of “news “shows that they need sales, nothing else. It does not say that toher fighters can not do the same or maybe do it even better. It just says other manufacturers are not so desperate for sales to make such performance data available to the public.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2294397
    seahawk
    Participant

    70.000 includes everything. Cost of purchase, support costs, costs of the personal at the airbase. According to AFM and other sources 80+% of those 70.000 are fixed costs unchanged by flying the plane or not flying it. So the real costs per flight hour shoud be around 15.000 Euro, which seems normal.

    in reply to: New bomber for Russian Air Force #2214278
    seahawk
    Participant

    I hope it is not B-2 like. I hope it is way faster, it needs a first strike capability against the US.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 3,269 total)