User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 8:50:11 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was ship's company on Vinson when VF-213 fired them for the first time in combat. After hearing about how badass the Phoenix was for years, I was massively disappointed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 9:09:54 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Helps if the ordies actually arm the missiles Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was ship's company on Vinson when VF-213 fired them for the first time in combat. After hearing about how badass the Phoenix was for years, I was massively disappointed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 9:21:02 AM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 9:33:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bring back the F-14 with fully modernized systems new production!...and while were at it bring back the BBs....rails guns.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 9:37:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Ugh. How long before we get "bring back the battleships" posts?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:16:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh also... http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-combat-01.htm Watching them drop bombs in 03 was pretty rad. Our FAC said they were pretty hot shit for PGM's. That would be the munition, not the airframe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:22:32 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, and the technological edge of an BVR missile that did not need support all the way to impact. Yeeeeeaaaaahhhh...I'm not sure you should use the phrase "technological edge" in any statement regarding the AIM-54, unless speaking historically. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:24:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ugh. How long before we get "bring back the battleships" posts? LOL...it was much earlier in this thread, but the last time was in the post just above yours. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:39:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Laughing at the mindset: "We need something to compete with the 2030 top of the line Porsche. So let's tweak the '73 Mustang design and reopen the production line!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:41:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeeeeeaaaaahhhh...I'm not sure you should use the phrase "technological edge" in any statement regarding the AIM-54, unless speaking historically. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This, and the technological edge of an BVR missile that did not need support all the way to impact. Yeeeeeaaaaahhhh...I'm not sure you should use the phrase "technological edge" in any statement regarding the AIM-54, unless speaking historically. Wasn't it only in the final variant that they finally replaced most of the tubes with digital systems? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:46:16 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swept wings of F-14 is pure bad ass and Navy pilots land on a moving ship at night. I recall one Navy pilot saying that landing on an aircraft carrier at night is like placing a postage stamp on your living room floor and and then turning off the lights, and then running and leaping head first and hitting the stamp with your tongue. LOL, was he trying to pick you up at a bar? If it was that hard/unpredictable there would be a lot more accidents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:07:38 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that what actually happened? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was ship's company on Vinson when VF-213 fired them for the first time in combat. After hearing about how badass the Phoenix was for years, I was massively disappointed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:08:15 AM EDT
[#13]
the tomcat was prone to flat spinning out to sea like a frisbee and had a ceiling of 10,000ft. Also the canopy was slower than the ejection seats, it didn't have ABS braking and you could only see out the canopy by flying inverted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:11:43 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, was he trying to pick you up at a bar? If it was that hard/unpredictable there would be a lot more accidents. I remember this quote from an old documentary early 80s. I think I still have it on VHS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 12:42:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL...it was much earlier in this thread, but the last time was in the post just above yours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ugh. How long before we get "bring back the battleships" posts? LOL...it was much earlier in this thread, but the last time was in the post just above yours. Hell, I'll do it. The Navy needs to bring back the Iowa class battleships rebuilt to the original idea from the 1980s. Remove the rear turret and build a flight deck and hangar so that we can have battleships that launch Tomcats at our enemies to make it a double dose of "AMERICA SAYS FUCK YOU!!!!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 1:33:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell, I'll do it. The Navy needs to bring back the Iowa class battleships rebuilt to the original idea from the 1980s. Remove the rear turret and build a flight deck and hangar so that we can have battleships that launch Tomcats at our enemies to make it a double dose of "AMERICA SAYS FUCK YOU!!!!" Squeeze GAU-8 into the F-14 and you've got an Arfcom wet dream.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 1:51:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeeeeeaaaaahhhh...I'm not sure you should use the phrase "technological edge" in any statement regarding the AIM-54, unless speaking historically. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This, and the technological edge of an BVR missile that did not need support all the way to impact. Yeeeeeaaaaahhhh...I'm not sure you should use the phrase "technological edge" in any statement regarding the AIM-54, unless speaking historically. Ugh no kidding. By the time the Phoenix would reach its 100 mile target it would be nearly out of fuel and a big heavy missile like that doesn't exactly maneuver so well. Present day AMRAAM systems are far more suited to today's threats and perform better than Phoenix did or could. Phoenix was awesome in the 70s, against big slow bombers for which it was designed. Forty years later an AMRAAM will mop the floor with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 1:58:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the tomcat was prone to flat spinning out to sea like a frisbee and had a ceiling of 10,000ft. Also the canopy was slower than the ejection seats, it didn't have ABS braking and you could only see out the canopy by flying inverted. You forgot the HUD and radar screen that only displays "FIRE" when its time to shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 2:00:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Squeeze GAU-8 into the F-14 and you've got an Arfcom wet dream.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 2:14:43 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You forgot the HUD and radar screen that only displays "FIRE" when its time to shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 2:22:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're not understanding what we're saying. The Tomcat was built for a role it would never fill. It was shoehorned into other things, like flying ISR and moving mud, but it was never particularly good at any of them, and its airframe was an absolute piece of shit. "upgraded" isn't a word you'd use for it, you'd have had to develop a brand new plane -- which the Navy did, and they called it the Rhino, and now we've got JSF. You know Rhino is not just an upgraded F/A-18A, right? It was a whole new plane, designed for what the Navy needed at the time with the understanding the Tomcat was done. There's never been a need for an "upgraded Tomcat", because the Tomcat never really did the job it was designed to do in the first place. I'm sure it would have had more use if the cold war had ever turned hot, but thank god it didn't, because the Phoenix was not at all what it was cracked up to be, and we'd probably have lost a battle group or two before we figured that out. The Tomcat was a purpose built AIM-54 carrier. That was its purpose -- to ferry Phoenix missiles as far out from the battle group as it could and launch them at incoming Soviet aircraft before they could launch their ASCMs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Employ modern weapons. Dogfight. Tank. Decreased maintenance. The Tomcat was a long range interceptor designed to fly against soviet bombing raids and shoot them down hundreds of miles away from the CVN with a missile that turned out to be a massive disappointment. Its avionics were absolutely 1970 state of the art, but it's not the 1970s anymore. So the Navy couldn't use an upgraded Tomcat? The old one had longer legs than the newer Bug. You're not understanding what we're saying. The Tomcat was built for a role it would never fill. It was shoehorned into other things, like flying ISR and moving mud, but it was never particularly good at any of them, and its airframe was an absolute piece of shit. "upgraded" isn't a word you'd use for it, you'd have had to develop a brand new plane -- which the Navy did, and they called it the Rhino, and now we've got JSF. You know Rhino is not just an upgraded F/A-18A, right? It was a whole new plane, designed for what the Navy needed at the time with the understanding the Tomcat was done. There's never been a need for an "upgraded Tomcat", because the Tomcat never really did the job it was designed to do in the first place. I'm sure it would have had more use if the cold war had ever turned hot, but thank god it didn't, because the Phoenix was not at all what it was cracked up to be, and we'd probably have lost a battle group or two before we figured that out. The Tomcat was a purpose built AIM-54 carrier. That was its purpose -- to ferry Phoenix missiles as far out from the battle group as it could and launch them at incoming Soviet aircraft before they could launch their ASCMs. Thank you for the explanation. Not to beat a dead horse, but I have some semi-serious questions. You said that the AIM-54 was not all it was cracked up to be, but that was in use against fighters, correct? Was it ever actually used against large bomber sized targets? My understanding was that it was indeed capable against such targets, even if it wasn't as successful against smaller and fighters. I understand opsec and all that, but within those bounds, assuming the Phoenix would perform as advertised against a bomber, does the latest AIM-120 (C7/D?) have the same range etc? Considering the A2AD environment, and the extra distance that carriers are said to have to stay from the coast, it would seem that an increased range, both for aircraft and ordinance, would be advantageous. As for new build Tomcats, there was a 'Super Tomcat 21' proposal that would have given it more range, larger engines, better radar, more air to air and air to ground payload, super cruise, thrust vectoring, blah blah blah. Any opinion? Or would it still not be necessary? Last, why was the Tomcat not particularly good at 'moving mud'? My understanding was that it did reasonably well in that role. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 3:02:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...AIM-54 Was it ever actually used against large bomber sized targets? We use both subsonic and supersonic target drones (not the aircraft drones). You can fly a supersonic drone using the same flight profile of a Blackjack bomber. The missile does not care, if it's programmed to look for a Blackjack bomber it goes after a Blackjack bomber, simulated or real.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 3:09:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You said that the AIM-54 was not all it was cracked up to be, but that was in use against fighters, correct? Was it ever actually used against large bomber sized targets? My understanding was that it was indeed capable against such targets, even if it wasn't as successful against smaller and fighters. -K Phoenix gets poo-pooed here because it was designed to be employed against bombers at very long range and if you shot it at a fighter sized target at that very long range, it didn't take much fighter maneuver to defeat the missile because it would run our of fuel/energy as it responded to changes in the predicted intercept point. I suspect that Phoenix was still pretty formidable when employed at reduced ranges against fighter size targets. The missile had a really long motor burn time which gave it a respectable "no escape" range. Admittedly, it was temperamental, in later years it was not carried often so ordies and flight crews lost familiarity with its quirks, and was prone to casing burn-through, but the 1000 pound wingman was a scary piece of gear in its day, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 3:59:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was it ever actually used against large bomber sized targets? My understanding was that it was indeed capable against such targets, even if it wasn't as successful against smaller and fighters. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 4:13:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be the munition, not the airframe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh also... http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-combat-01.htm Watching them drop bombs in 03 was pretty rad. Our FAC said they were pretty hot shit for PGM's. 
The best part about it IS the airframe because it's fucking huge so they hung all sorts of shit off of it to expand existing capabilities. 
With the ability to just toss shit on F-14's could self FAC. I imagine you don't recall the article where the AF had a hard time retrofitting B-1's to do the same? It was awhile before the sniper pod was worked up to replace the LANTIRN targeting pod, a thing that was modified to rock socks specifically or the F-14 based on it's built in ability to integrate things easier than other aircraft. If you think it's "the munition not the air frame" then you don't know much about the air frame and why it's better at dropping said munitions than other air frames. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 5:54:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
False. You should probably read the article I posted as well. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-rover.jpg The best part about it IS the airframe because it's fucking huge so they hung all sorts of shit off of it to expand existing capabilities. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-lantirn-01l.jpg With the ability to just toss shit on F-14's could self FAC. I imagine you don't recall the article where the AF had a hard time retrofitting B-1's to do the same? It was awhile before the sniper pod was worked up to replace the LANTIRN targeting pod, a thing that was modified to rock socks specifically or the F-14 based on it's built in ability to integrate things easier than other aircraft. If you think it's "the munition not the air frame" then you don't know much about the air frame and why it's better at dropping said munitions than other air frames. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh also... http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-combat-01.htm Watching them drop bombs in 03 was pretty rad. Our FAC said they were pretty hot shit for PGM's. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-rover.jpg The best part about it IS the airframe because it's fucking huge so they hung all sorts of shit off of it to expand existing capabilities. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-lantirn-01l.jpg With the ability to just toss shit on F-14's could self FAC. I imagine you don't recall the article where the AF had a hard time retrofitting B-1's to do the same? It was awhile before the sniper pod was worked up to replace the LANTIRN targeting pod, a thing that was modified to rock socks specifically or the F-14 based on it's built in ability to integrate things easier than other aircraft. If you think it's "the munition not the air frame" then you don't know much about the air frame and why it's better at dropping said munitions than other air frames. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 5:55:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Iranians appeared to have been pretty happy with Phoenix performance against Iraqi fighters in the 1980s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was it ever actually used against large bomber sized targets? My understanding was that it was indeed capable against such targets, even if it wasn't as successful against smaller and fighters. -K Iraqs military exists to make everyone else look and feel good about theirs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 6:46:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh also... http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-combat-01.htm Watching them drop bombs in 03 was pretty rad. Our FAC said they were pretty hot shit for PGM's. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-rover.jpg The best part about it IS the airframe because it's fucking huge so they hung all sorts of shit off of it to expand existing capabilities. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-lantirn-01l.jpg With the ability to just toss shit on F-14's could self FAC. I imagine you don't recall the article where the AF had a hard time retrofitting B-1's to do the same? It was awhile before the sniper pod was worked up to replace the LANTIRN targeting pod, a thing that was modified to rock socks specifically or the F-14 based on it's built in ability to integrate things easier than other aircraft. If you think it's "the munition not the air frame" then you don't know much about the air frame and why it's better at dropping said munitions than other air frames. ETA - the infusion of the Attack mafia following A-6 sundown definitely brought tactical expertise in mud-moving to the VF community. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 6:57:35 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pilots like pictures Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
You forgot the HUD and radar screen that only displays "FIRE" when its time to shoot. Naval aviator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 7:22:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Best option of course would have to been to go with Super Tomcats instead of Super Hornets.
If you're going to trick congress by making new planes that look like old planes and calling them "upgraded', might as well use old planes that are way fucking cooler. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 7:44:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best option of course would have to been to go with Super Tomcats instead of Super Hornets. <img src="http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif" /> If you're going to trick congress by making new planes that look like old planes and calling them "upgraded', might as well use old planes that are way fucking cooler. <img src="http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_clown.gif" /> Then bring in the VTOL super F4U. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 7:55:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then bring in the VTOL super F4U. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Best option of course would have to been to go with Super Tomcats instead of Super Hornets. <img src="http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif" /> If you're going to trick congress by making new planes that look like old planes and calling them "upgraded', might as well use old planes that are way fucking cooler. <img src="http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_clown.gif" /> Then bring in the VTOL super F4U. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 7:57:21 PM EDT
[#33]
F-14
Fucking things required more main hours of maintenance to fly one mission than it did to put Apollo 11 on the moon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 7:57:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will say that I have never seen a designated Super Hornet sitting in the front of Bay 1 in pieces like I always did with the Tomcats. I can't go much further than that though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I've read, one Tomcat would often be cannibalized on a carrier for parts to keep the others flying. To be fair, that's standard for almost every squadron that deploys nowadays. The parts just aren't there, so hangar queens are immediately designated at the beginning of deployment. Scratch that: It was true up until I retired in 2005. I don't know about the last decade...but I have my suspicions (and I'm sitting about 10 feet away from the back of Superhornet as I type this as a civilian). I will say that I have never seen a designated Super Hornet sitting in the front of Bay 1 in pieces like I always did with the Tomcats. I can't go much further than that though. I would imagine that still happens with the Baby Hornets, given the maintinence state of that fleet. Especially the USMC birds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 8:10:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well.... I mean... they did when they went from the A model to the B model, so apparently you can. simply. put. new. engines. on. Different brands even. Just have to be an American to do so, not an American't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You. Can't. Simply. Put. New. Engines. On. With less payload, actually, because the -35 can actually carry things slick instead of cluttering itself up. Different brands even. Just have to be an American to do so, not an American't. Airflow through a turbofan, especially on an aircraft meant to go supersonic, is non-trivial, as the airflow needs to be carefully controlled. This is why there are different intake setups for the F-16, despite the F100 and F110 being designed to be interchangeable... they aren't quite. Failure to properly design both the inlet and the exhaust can have serious consequences. If you're lucky, it just won't perform as expected. If you aren't... compressor stalls, flame-outs, or unexpected rapid disassembly may occur. It's not like dropping a new engine in a car, or even swapping engines on a Prop. In aircraft with Nacelled engines, it is dramatically easier, as the Nacelle will contain a properly designed intake and tailpipe, and you only need to futz with the airflow on the pylon, which is a much easier exercise. This is why re-engineing the B-52 is a bad example; that's a much easier exercise. Same thing with airliner re-engine programs. A few years ago, I was involved with a proposal to re-engine the Russian Yak-40. It's a 3-engine bird, all in the rear (similar to an L1011 or a Falcon 50/900). Two of the 3 engines are in Nacelles, and it was proposed to replace them with US engines. The center engine was ducted, such that the inlet was above the fuselage and the engine itself was aligned with the tailpipe. The proposal was to retain the crappy Russian AI-25 in that position, as re-engining an engine in that duct would be an immensely complicated task. It just wasn't worth it. I never thought much of that program; sanctions from Crimea and the subsequent collapse of the Russian economy subsequently killed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 8:26:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best option of course would have to been to go with Super Tomcats instead of Super Hornets. If you're going to trick congress by making new planes that look like old planes and calling them "upgraded', might as well use old planes that are way fucking cooler. A real ground-pounder would want a Super Intruder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 8:26:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As much as I love the F14 and consider it the most beautiful plane ever built, it was a pig for maintenance, was not really a dog fighter, and in its age offered less and less to make it valuable to keep around. Cost to keep it in the air was getting too high. Perhaps KA3B will be along to slap me around for being wrong on some points. They didn't retire it because it wasn't a Great Plane, they retired it because as you mentioned, it cost a lot of money both to build and keep in the air. It was a do everything and anything plane. I remember watching them test it over Calverton Long Island in the seventies. The chase plane would shoot past it when it would put out its wings and lower its gear and then couldn't keep up with it when it got into high speed mode. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 9:58:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would imagine that still happens with the Baby Hornets, given the maintinence state of that fleet. Especially the USMC birds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I've read, one Tomcat would often be cannibalized on a carrier for parts to keep the others flying. To be fair, that's standard for almost every squadron that deploys nowadays. The parts just aren't there, so hangar queens are immediately designated at the beginning of deployment. Scratch that: It was true up until I retired in 2005. I don't know about the last decade...but I have my suspicions (and I'm sitting about 10 feet away from the back of Superhornet as I type this as a civilian). I will say that I have never seen a designated Super Hornet sitting in the front of Bay 1 in pieces like I always did with the Tomcats. I can't go much further than that though. I would imagine that still happens with the Baby Hornets, given the maintinence state of that fleet. Especially the USMC birds. They were never the maintenance nightmare the Tomcat was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:00:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the tomcat was prone to flat spinning out to sea like a frisbee and had a ceiling of 10,000ft. Also the canopy was slower than the ejection seats, it didn't have ABS braking and you could only see out the canopy by flying inverted. You learned this all from that one documentary, didn't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:07:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We use both subsonic and supersonic target drones (not the aircraft drones). You can fly a supersonic drone using the same flight profile of a Blackjack bomber. The missile does not care, if it's programmed to look for a Blackjack bomber it goes after a Blackjack bomber, simulated or real. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...AIM-54 Was it ever actually used against large bomber sized targets? We use both subsonic and supersonic target drones (not the aircraft drones). You can fly a supersonic drone using the same flight profile of a Blackjack bomber. The missile does not care, if it's programmed to look for a Blackjack bomber it goes after a Blackjack bomber, simulated or real. So to make sure I understand, the flight profile of the target is what matters, not the size of the target aircraft? -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:10:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Iranians appeared to have been pretty happy with Phoenix performance against Iraqi fighters in the 1980s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was it ever actually used against large bomber sized targets? My understanding was that it was indeed capable against such targets, even if it wasn't as successful against smaller and fighters. -K I seem to recall reading that the Iraqi pilots would turn and run when lit up by the F-14's radar due to their experience with the Iranian jets in the '80's. I have no idea how true this is, but it's a fun anecdote. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:16:14 PM EDT
[#42]
I always thought the A-6 intruders were cool.
They should bring THOSE back! :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:19:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought the A-6 intruders were cool. They should bring THOSE back! :) Those things would rattle the teeth out of your head for about 15 minutes while they were flying in to land at Oceana. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2017 1:53:19 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought the A-6 intruders were cool. They should bring THOSE back! :) Use the original designs SVTOL and make it swing a full 90 deg for VTOL! (kill enemies by the noise alone just hovering over them!) 
Super all the things! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2017 2:07:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Airflow through a turbofan, especially on an aircraft meant to go supersonic, is non-trivial, as the airflow needs to be carefully controlled. This is why there are different intake setups for the F-16, despite the F100 and F110 being designed to be interchangeable... they aren't quite. Failure to properly design both the inlet and the exhaust can have serious consequences. If you're lucky, it just won't perform as expected. If you aren't... compressor stalls, flame-outs, or unexpected rapid disassembly may occur. The only reason why the F-16 does not have a variable inlet is $$ "In order to save weight and complexity, the geometry of the intake was fixed, which limits the maximum speed of the F-16 to below Mach 2" The Block 30 F-16 was powered by the 28,984 lb.s.t. General Electric F110-GE-100 engine. This engine is somewhat larger than the F100 and about 771 pound heavier. However, the F110 provides about 5000 pounds more thrust than the F100. For this reason, it requires a larger amount of air. This in turn required that the area of the air intake be increased to admit the extra air. However, this change was not made at first, and early F-16C/D Block 30s (Block 30A and 30B) were "small inlet" aircraft, the large inlet being made standard for F110-powered Fighting Falcons from serial number 86-0262 onward. The "large-mouth" intakes allows air mass flow to increase from 254 to 270 pounds per second. The "large- mouth" intakes can be distinguished from "small-mouth" intakes by the presence of a ECS ram air inlet duct below the fuselage which is canted slightly forward. In addition, the engine exhaust nozzle for F110-powered aircraft is slightly shorter and more round than that of the F100-powered F-16s. Because of the higher thrust, the Block 30 F-16 is a better performer than the Block 32. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2017 2:25:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best option of course would have to been to go with Super Tomcats instead of Super Hornets. If you're going to trick congress by making new planes that look like old planes and calling them "upgraded', might as well use old planes that are way fucking cooler. Exactly. Plus they can fly longer without having to refuel and carry a heavier payload. What's not to like? * Before the "super high maintenance dwebes" show up. Build new planes that require less maintenance because they are newer, and can carry more than their predecessor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2017 2:26:21 AM EDT
[#47]
Bombcat! Lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2017 2:38:58 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bombcat! Lol. Would come screaming in wings folded, slow down, wings would pop out, loiter for a minute, drop fuck off huge JDAMs for a bit, then accelerate fold back up and scream back to where they came from. Everyone was all wait... what the fuck did a F-14 just bomb something? That's when the FAC filled filled us in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2017 2:41:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. Plus they can fly longer without having to refuel and carry a heavier payload. What's not to like? * Before the "super high maintenance dwebes" show up. Built new planes that require less maintenance because the are newer, and can carry more than their predator. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Best option of course would have to been to go with Super Tomcats instead of Super Hornets. If you're going to trick congress by making new planes that look like old planes and calling them "upgraded', might as well use old planes that are way fucking cooler. Exactly. Plus they can fly longer without having to refuel and carry a heavier payload. What's not to like? * Before the "super high maintenance dwebes" show up. Built new planes that require less maintenance because the are newer, and can carry more than their predator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2017 2:43:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bombcat! Lol. They were good at it... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
