dark light

SteveO

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,276 through 1,290 (of 1,444 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Tornado vs Viggen #2673315
    SteveO
    Participant

    The Tornado GR1A/GR4A have internal recce gear, not podded. Only the Germans use podded gear nowadays because they got rid of the RF-4E as part of their peace dividend. Luftwaffe Tornados IDS never were planned to have the recce role, it was planned to give this role to the ECR but this actually never took up the recce role.

    The RAF use the Raptor reconnaisance pod, look here
    http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/rec_sys.html#raptor

    in reply to: Tornado vs Viggen #2673393
    SteveO
    Participant

    Interesting Viggen information to be found here
    http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/37viggen.htm

    To me multi-role means that an aircraft can do both air-air and air-ground missions with the optimum weapons and equipment. The F-15E is a good example.

    The Tornado and Viggen in original form only have secondary air-air and air-ground capabilities with dumb bombs/rockets and Sidewinders.

    in reply to: Tornado vs Viggen #2674896
    SteveO
    Participant

    I think Tornado has the edge due to the fact it can carry a wider range of weapons and its a 2 seater.

    I don’t think you can call either multi-role, the Viggen was built in interceptor, strike and reconnaisance variants which had the same airframe but very different avionics and weapons fits. The same applies for tornado in IDS and ADV versions.

    Didn’t the Indian AF want to operate the Viggen at one time?

    in reply to: The Spencer Flack Sea Fury #1423340
    SteveO
    Participant

    Found this on Google image search
    http://www.aeroplaneart.com.au/SeaFury_cutaway.htm

    in reply to: Whats wrong with EF2000? #2676549
    SteveO
    Participant

    The only thing wrong with the Eurofighter is the political aspect of the program, which has delayed service entry so much that the cutting edge technology at the start of the program is now standard equipment on upgraded older designs.

    Even so, the partner nations are going to get the most capable aircraft they have ever operated.

    in reply to: Why was there never a three-engined fighter ??? #2676580
    SteveO
    Participant

    How bout this, do any of you hear of a 4 engined fighter? it exists, but try and guess 😉

    Found it at last,
    Curtiss XF-87 quad-jet, twin-place all-weather high-altitude fighter.
    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f87.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-87_Blackhawk

    in reply to: just what can Air Force One do? #2678028
    SteveO
    Participant

    I guess Airforce One’s capabilities are kept secret, but heres a possibility;)

    http://www.up-ship.com/apr/contents.htm
    Boeing’s Mini-Fighter
    Fighters that can be carried by other aircraft, and launched and recovered while in flight, have long been a dream of many designers and planners. Boeing took a stab at the concept in the 1970s, with a very small jet fighter that could be conveniently stowed, launched and recovered by a modified 747.

    in reply to: Russian carriers #2067028
    SteveO
    Participant

    These carriers have different 4×3 flightdeck missile silos to the KUZNETSOV CLASS which has 2×6

    in reply to: Russian carriers #2067036
    SteveO
    Participant

    i have a question does russia have a carrier and if so what is the status if not is their plans for a carrier

    Some info here
    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/

    in reply to: INTERESTING CONCEPT, THE AVCEN JETPOD #2679851
    SteveO
    Participant

    Looks like some really impressive new technology beng developed in the UK (about time too, all the money we spend on R&D).

    Couldn’t agree more, UKs always testing impressive new technology, but it never gets to the frontline until its not new and not impressive anymore.

    in reply to: Heavy Tactical VertiLift #2681627
    SteveO
    Participant

    Airships would be cool. And the largest ones would appear to have the massive lift capacity the army wants. But they’re slow and unsexy. And they no doubt have many drawbacks that will keep them out of transport service.

    Still, they’d be pretty cool…

    I’d like to see heavy lift airships in service too, but I guess they are more suited to strategic transport than tactical.

    Look here for the Skycat series heavy lift airships
    http://www.atg-airships.com/

    in reply to: Heavy Tactical VertiLift #2616660
    SteveO
    Participant

    I dunno, the SVTOL has it’s advantages, but a fixed wing STOL aircraft is MUCH more cost effective. Compare the SVTOL Osprey to something like a S-80GP or like C-27 Spartan, they can lift more than the Osprey, and at longer ranges.

    I agree STOL or SuperSTOL would be good for the Army, but the Marines and Navy need VTOL to operate from ships.

    in reply to: Iowa vs Yamato..who wins? #2067531
    SteveO
    Participant

    Er, the what now? Got a picture?

    http://smmlonline.com/articles/ise/ise.html

    IJN Ise was a hybrid battleship/aircraft carrier, such a concept was proposed for the Iowa class to reduce the manpower required by removing the rear turret and adding a large flight deck. CTOL, STOVL and pure helicopter designs were submitted.

    in reply to: Heavy Tactical VertiLift #2617255
    SteveO
    Participant

    Sounds like a difficult requirement, I think a new tandem rotor design (Chinook type) would be best.
    All the engine power for lift, efficent fusalage (all cabin, not pod and boom), compact dimensions for ship operations (rotors folded).

    in reply to: Heavy Tactical VertiLift #2617284
    SteveO
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 1,276 through 1,290 (of 1,444 total)