dark light

eagle

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,756 through 1,770 (of 1,837 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-5E vs Mirage III/V #2625181
    eagle
    Participant

    Mirage III for high altitude and Tiger II for low altitude.
    Thats the way the Swiss used theirs. The Mirage has a much better climbing rate, so its the better interceptor whereas the Tiger flies CAP.

    in reply to: A12 AVENGER AIRCRAFT(STEALTH BOMBER) #2625184
    eagle
    Participant

    The most expensive parts of an aircraft are the engines and avionics. So any new design using the F119/F136 engines and the JSFs avionics cant be that expensive.
    The baseline Raptor lacks the ability to carry any heavy weapons so i think a B-3 like plane sounds better.

    in reply to: A12 AVENGER AIRCRAFT(STEALTH BOMBER) #2625911
    eagle
    Participant

    A mini B-2 could even evolve as a reworked A-12…
    Afterall, the USAF was also on the Avenger list for a F-111 replacement.

    eagle
    Participant

    On another note: What happens to the Tomcatters when they move on to the Super Hornet? Will they become the VKFA-31 Super Hornetters?

    in reply to: F-35 name #2627316
    eagle
    Participant

    Starstrike?
    Someone proposed Mini Me I think. Not such a bad idea. 😀

    in reply to: A12 AVENGER AIRCRAFT(STEALTH BOMBER) #2628716
    eagle
    Participant

    IMHO the A-12 would have been an extraordinary bomber to replace the A-6. Thanks to its very low wing loading it should be very agile and have excellent low speed handling.

    It was cancelled by D. Cheney…
    Cost was an issue, the planned numbers were reduced after the cold war ended. Also the weight was a major problem. Requirements were for 24 (!) Mk 82 and 2 AMRAAMS all carried in bays. Add to that the gear and the air intakes all located at the underfuselage. These “holes” increased the weight of the structure. It was approaching the limits for the elevators.

    Since we all know the capabilites of the Avengers replacement, this is a sad story for the USN.

    in reply to: F-35 name #2629155
    eagle
    Participant

    Well pilots seem to use Rhino for any plane, so why not finally call a fighter Rhino officially?

    Other than that: What follows the Viper? The Corvette. 😀

    Or Corsair III since the A-7 has also been used by a number of services, even in the same roles.

    Or Griffon.

    in reply to: Mirage 2000-5 Question (and pics) #2631368
    eagle
    Participant

    Are those 250-kg bombs on the first Mirage pic in the last set of pictures?

    I think so.

    in reply to: F/A-18E/F Question #2631397
    eagle
    Participant

    I wasn’t trying to compare it to the F-15 other than to point out that it’s fuel load is larger than the F-15C. The way those pylons are toed out I’m sure has an effect.

    Yes, the fuel load is larger yet the range is smaller. Says a lot I think.

    BTW do you fly Eagles? Just curious about your alias and you seem to like them.

    I don’t fly anything, I’m just an enthusiast. But the Eagle is my favourite, hence my nick. 😉

    in reply to: F/A-18E/F Question #2631895
    eagle
    Participant

    That doesn’t seem likely with the E/A-18G Growler entering service soon? In the article does it state if the EA-35B is a two-seater?

    But the Marines don’t have any Super Hornets. Those smart guys. 😀
    And yes, it is said to be a two-seater.

    in reply to: F/A-18E/F Question #2631913
    eagle
    Participant

    You lost me here? I thought you said that there would be a 2-seat JSF?

    Yep, but I didn’t remember this is based on the STOVL Variant.

    in reply to: F/A-18E/F Question #2631916
    eagle
    Participant

    Two-seat JSF’s……..news to me. When was that announced?

    It was in afms article UK Future Maritime Airpower. It is mentioned as EA-35B based on the F-35B to replace the Marines Prowlers.

    in reply to: F/A-18E/F Question #2631927
    eagle
    Participant

    Will they be developing a twin seat VSTOL F-35?

    I have no clue, but that wouldn’t be easy. To retain all the avionics, the fuselage would have to be stretched because of the lift fan behind the cockpit.

    in reply to: F/A-18E/F Question #2631933
    eagle
    Participant

    In the fuel department it isn’t lacking when you take in external tanks. It can carry four 480 gallon tanks which is more than an Eagle’s three 600 gallon tanks. Couple that with engines that use less gas than the F100s and it’s probably not too bad. Of course, unlike the Strike Eagle you have to lose some of those tanks to carry bombs but what can ya do? I still think the Attack Tomcat 21 is the one we should have went with 🙂 but then that would have been a lot more $$$

    You wanna compare the Super Hornet to the Strike Eagle? This is just ridiculous :p
    The Problem of the SH is not fuel, but drag. Most of the external fuel is used to compensate the airbraking effect of the loudout.

    In case anyone wonders why the SH doesn’t need an airbrake:

    in reply to: F/A-18E/F Question #2631971
    eagle
    Participant

    Question: If, the F-35 (JSF) is only going to be built in single seaters. Why didn’t the USMC buy twin-seat F/A-18F’s to replace there older F/A-18D’s?????

    There are plans for a twin-seat ECM JSF. I think esp. the export customers would appreciate a double seater so Lockheed should go on and develop that thing.
    Besides, the F doesn’t offer enough improvements to justify a replacement of the Ds. 😀

Viewing 15 posts - 1,756 through 1,770 (of 1,837 total)