If I absolutly had to chase a UFO this is what I’d want to do it in…..!
Yep, that’s truly a UI (Unsurpassed Interceptor) and should be able to mop up any AMLs (Alien Monstrous Lifeforms) – apart from Firebar – with no trouble at all…
Now then, now then…
… what all you silly boys are forgetting is that ET comes equipped with force fields to protect his ships against those primitive ‘guided missile’ things which you’re proposing to use.
You’re going to need to send in either:
Jeff Goldblum + Will Smith
or
Harrison Ford + Mark Hamill
Those are the only combinations known to work, I believe…
IMHO any interceptor which wants to call itself ‘unsurpassed’ would have to be able to triumph in a number of different mission environments.
The SR71 intercept – i.e. high and fast – scenario is so obviously hyper specialised that we can dismiss the OP claim with some ease. Is anyone actually claiming that the Foxbat was actually any better at low – medium level intercept than half a dozen other fighters you could name? I can think of a standard scenario where even earlier generation fighters like the Bae Lightning could give it a run for its money.
So no, even if you accept the dubious claims made for performance without the slightest critique, the OP is wrong.
The theatre of ‘interception’ is far too involved and unpredictable for any one machine to collect such a sweeping accolade. People on these forums are forever trying to get us to compare F1 cars with Le Mans and rallye types as if a general similarity means you can give a meaningful response on what are actually different beasts.
its a really good question, although the harrier concept still cannot be questioned, it has never served in any situation close to the original brief,
i don’t know if anyone can tell me how early on the sea harrier was thought of. No doubt the falklands was its greatest moment, but as has been discussed before, it is probable a convential carrier force iwth the phantoms and bucc’s aswell as gannets would have probably done a better job.
I have never heard of any hoped sales to china.
That about sums it up.
Nothing came remotely close to the Harrier as an assets dispersal concept during the Cold War. The only thing which I can think of as rivalling it was the Swedish ‘hardened motorway’ notion:
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/bas/dispersed_basing.html
This attacked the problem from an entirely different angle.
We have the fact that the Cold War never got hot to thank for not being able to gauge the ‘success’ of the Harrier, although its adaptability to matters such as the Falklands and the fact that it’s been sold widely and is still in widespread use today tend to be fairly conclusive.
Since there appears to be no stopping the Firebar-MiG-25 romance, seems to me they should go and mate. May God bless the union with the patter of tiny little interceptors.
Everyone knows most pilots kept their hands firmly on the ejector for the few minutes they could sustain at m3, as the plexiglass began to melt along with other interesting and somewhat essential bits of the airframe…
What a shame….I don’t know what it is, but the Su-17 series has always intrigued me. It reminds me of a Soviet F-4-type aircraft, but with more of a focus on the attack role. It’s big, and heavy, and powerful, and loud….just like the Phantom.
Er.. you’re not serious about comparing this with the F-4, are you?
The plane is a beaut.
I just wonder whether it’ll be overtaken by events technologywise.
As the OP I actually don’t see much future in the concept unless you could combine the idea of smaller units either with speedier deployment or greater numbers.
Whereas I’m not sure about the first element, I’d suggest there is a case for the second. Certainly, if you could combine the two, my guess would be that the traditional CBG concept is under threat from a new alternative.
Inevitably going to be part of the Cotswold Water Park.
Center Parcs will probably take over what remains and you’ll be able to take your memories with you all the way down the water chutes…
Hmm… Not exactly what I had in mind (being that this is an airborne weapons thread).
A comment which is quite relevant to your own posting.
So then, its to be boring ol’ missiles and bullets as far ahead as we can foresee, right…..?
Seems I’ll have to take that as a no, then, boo hoo…
… and here are the guys strutting their stuff in NYC…
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-gb&vid=ee3a6f6e-e72c-413c-8f64-6d9228728e16
I really hate and feel bitter towards people who write ‘some much’ when they actually mean ‘so much’….
Depending on what you call an ‘air force’ and what you call ‘combat’, I wouldn’t mind a small bet that ‘no combat history’ is the rule rather than the exception for the majority of world states.
Looks pretty professional to me! 😎
[ATTACH]160979[/ATTACH]
Just looks evil to me. I think you’re confusing ‘professional’ with ‘superficially powerful’.
Stalin had a similar problem with distinguishing the quantity (of military divisions) with the quality. Hitler gave him a rude shock.