Knight26 Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 Yeah the JRs are still out on the JFK, they should be returning soon. More then likely what you saw was one of their backup aircraft that they left behind just in case. Since they are on their way home from the gulf they likely will not recieve anymore aircraft even if they accidentally lose one.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 22, 2004 Author Posted October 22, 2004 it sucks that this is the Jolly rogers last cruise before they switch over to the super bug. Seriously the markings of the JR's does not look nearly as well as it did on the phantom and the tomcat. NEver thought much of the F-100 but It always seemed a lot less manueverable than the F-86. Hey I was thinking guys, is it possible to equip a GE-F110 engine to a F-8J, add a bubble cockpit, equip it with dual AMRAAM rails on each sidewinder rail, add a HUD, and a composite wing to a stock F-8J crusader? I think that would rule. BE good and perhaps cheap for export as well. I call it the "dreamsader"
Knight26 Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 No shin that would require some massive rengineering to accomplish, the engine replacement for one thing would be a nightmare, the F-8 IIRC uses a much longer and smaller diameter engine then the F-110, which is shorter but fatter. Remaking the wing might be possible but then again the change in mass would throw off the CG something fierce and there would have to be changes made. In order to give it AMRAAM capabilities, well that would require completely replacing the whole avionics suite including a new radar. All in all you would no longer have an F-8 when you were done, better idea would be to design up a whole new plane around the F-110 using the F-8 as a starting point, make a more modern day gun fighter.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 22, 2004 Author Posted October 22, 2004 ahh.,...a pipe dream then. RIght now I am designing some planes for my comic and one of them is influenced by the F-8. It's a wild weasel however. When I took a step back and looked at it, it looked like a mesh of a F-105 and F-8 mated with a YA-7H!!! reading through those old oversize books from the 80s, I read about the F-4 with variable wings. THis one was a proposed variant with swing wings. Head on it looks like a MIG-23. From the top its like a mig 23 combined with a TU-126 and b1b lancer. SO with that.........I guess this willl be done with probability and numbers... F-4J vs F-4(VWS) "variable wing sweep" MIG-23 vs F-4 VWS F-14 vs VWS Also I know this is ever changing...but I keep hearing about eurofighter tranches and the possibility of the gun being deleted...what's up with this? and... F/A-18F vs F-15K a2a. close in knife fight. NO off boresight. Just AIM-9L/guns, no HMS, close in. F/A-18E vs F-15C. same rules as above. for kicks... F/A-18F vs MIG-29SMT a2a F/A-18F vs Su-30MKI close in. no boresight rules do NOT apply to the russian planes. and...for kicks once more.. F-35C vs F-16A close in knife fight....F-35C w/external mounted gunpod.
David Hingtgen Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 For the last one, F-16A. (Though a late Block 30 is probably the ultimate a2a Falcon---or maybe a stripped down Block 50) While the subject came up: VF-103 Commanding Officer Relieved http://news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15566 Yes, people know what happened. No, nobody's talking.
VF-19 Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 Call me stupid, but what happened? Did he protest the retirement of the F-14? The article is leading me to believe that acted in a manner that's unbecoming for an officer (ie bar-room brawling, assault, rape etc...).
David Hingtgen Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 He's held responsible for the actions of his pilots. Probably wasn't HIM, but one of his subordinates. Maybe a pilot, maybe a RIO. And yes, it's probably one of the things you listed.
VF-19 Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 He's held responsible for the actions of his pilots. Probably wasn't HIM, but one of his subordinates. Maybe a pilot, maybe a RIO. And yes, it's probably one of the things you listed. Ouch... Well, a CO is responsible for those under him... Back on topic: I'm quite interested in the BAE Hawk, I've found some info about it (generally good, some bad), but I'm more interested in the Canadian versions of it, which I think goes under the designation CT-155. Info on Canadian planes can be tricky to find... And FYI, I'm building the Airfix 1:48th Hawk 100 as the Canadian version. Surprisingly good fit, but the cockpit was lacking rudder pedals...
F-ZeroOne Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 He's held responsible for the actions of his pilots. Probably wasn't HIM, but one of his subordinates. Maybe a pilot, maybe a RIO. And yes, it's probably one of the things you listed. Ouch... Well, a CO is responsible for those under him... Back on topic: I'm quite interested in the BAE Hawk, I've found some info about it (generally good, some bad), but I'm more interested in the Canadian versions of it, which I think goes under the designation CT-155. Info on Canadian planes can be tricky to find... And FYI, I'm building the Airfix 1:48th Hawk 100 as the Canadian version. Surprisingly good fit, but the cockpit was lacking rudder pedals... One comment I heard about the Hawk was that when it was in competition with the Alpha Jet for a US Navy order, the Navy refused to hold a fly-off on the grounds that it would be "No contest"... The Hawk is, of course, the mount of the RAFs Red Arrows display team. I had a real surprise a couple months ago. We had driven to our local airport to see off some family friends, when we realised we had an escort - the Red Arrows, all coming in for landing! Not only that, but while we were waiting for the flight, we were sat in the cafe having a coffee, when I turned round to see the whole Red Arrows team sat at the table opposite, drinking tea...!
VF-19 Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 Wow. Lucky you. A few years ago I met one of the members of the Snowbirds next to his jet. It was a most excellent day.
hellohikaru Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 @David I read an article about an F-8 jockey who said he actually preferred the 9B Sidewinder over the 9D Super Sidewinder. The guy went on a alpha strike escort mission with only 3 9Ds(one was defective and removed prior to the cat launch). During the mission he encountered like 4 MiG-17 Frescos. He guns got jammed and none of the winders scored a hit.
David Hingtgen Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 Basic rule for all Vietnam missiles: They all suck and have horrific fail rates. Won't launch, launch but won't fire, fire but won't track, track but don't blow up, track for 2 miles then veer off at the mid-point, fire but DON'T launch (really bad), etc. Some are worse than others. But even the "best" can fail 5 times in a row if you're unlucky. You can have an F-4C with 4 AIM-9's and 4 AIM-7's and have NONE of them work. And no gun.
hellohikaru Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 Shin You know i though since the Philippine AF is mostly concerned with COIN mission these days then they should try acquiring the A-10A Warthog to replace the OV-10s. Easy to maintain and good for fighting the rebels down south.
Knight26 Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 ShinYou know i though since the Philippine AF is mostly concerned with COIN mission these days then they should try acquiring the A-10A Warthog to replace the OV-10s. Easy to maintain and good for fighting the rebels down south. Congress won't allow A-10s to be sold outside the US armed forces, mostly due to the gun and becuase they are no longer in production, Fairchild-Republic, the company that made them is out of business.
hellohikaru Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 Congress won't allow A-10s to be sold outside the US armed forces, mostly due to the gun and becuase they are no longer in production, Fairchild-Republic, the company that made them is out of business. It can't be the gun...not that it is a death ray or anything. But back in the late 80s/early 90s A-10s were in fact offered to Turkey and South Korea. Both got the F-16 instead but yeah the A-10 was export marketed.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 23, 2004 Author Posted October 23, 2004 Hell the philippines needs at least SOMETHING modern. Those tigers sure kick ass but.....geez......nowhere near modern. A lot of me aWISHES the tigershark was made just so we could have something decent over there. Or a gripen but even that might cost too much for my corruption laden wack economy home land.
Knight26 Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 Congress won't allow A-10s to be sold outside the US armed forces, mostly due to the gun and becuase they are no longer in production, Fairchild-Republic, the company that made them is out of business. It can't be the gun...not that it is a death ray or anything. But back in the late 80s/early 90s A-10s were in fact offered to Turkey and South Korea. Both got the F-16 instead but yeah the A-10 was export marketed. That was when the Air Force brass (fragging morons) were doing everything they could to ditcht he A-10. The export version would have had the gun removed though as the gun cooling system is still consider classified, plus even if they had been sold it with the gun they would not have been sold the DU ammo. The countries would have had to have bought it from other vendors, beside the US is one of the only countries to use DU ammo.
hellohikaru Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 Well...the article did mention the USAF would supply a certain amount of ammunition for the gun when they export the planes to Turkey. A-10 fire both armour piercing and high explosive incendiary shells. However due to the health hazards that come with the depleted uranium shells they were plans to replace them with tungsten alloy projectiles.
Mislovrit Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 However due to the health hazards that come with the depleted uranium shells they were plans to replace them with tungsten alloy projectiles. What health hazards iirc only people who suffer from DU poisoning are those who were on the recieving end of cannon burst? The tungsten alloy rounds are probably going to be just as toxic as DU but going several times more expensive. Wasn't the A-10s been sold to the Saudi and Kuwaiti Air Forces post-ODS?
Nied Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) F/A-18F vs F-15K a2a. close in knife fight. NO off boresight. Just AIM-9L/guns, no HMS, close in. Well If you let them have Off-boresight weapons and HMCS I'd give it to the F-15K in a walk. But without off-boresight weapons the Rhino gets a decided advantage since the ability to point it's nose gives it more chances to take a shot at the Eagle. In the end it would come down to which pilot could take better advantege of their plane. F/A-18E vs F-15C. same rules as above. Same as above with maybe a bit bigger advantage for the Rhino (the albino Eagle doesn't have quite power advantage of the K). F/A-18F vs MIG-29SMT a2a The Rhino has an avionics advantage and a second set of eyes in the backseat should give the Rhino an edge over the Fulcrum. F/A-18F vs Su-30MKI close in. no boresight rules do NOT apply to the russian planes. The MKI Erases the Rhino's maneuverability, crew, and even most of it's avionics advantage, while at the same time having quite a bit more power to play with. Flanker all the way. Edited October 24, 2004 by Nied
hellohikaru Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) What health hazards iirc only people who suffer from DU poisoning are those who were on the recieving end of cannon burst? The tungsten alloy rounds are probably going to be just as toxic as DU but going several times more expensive. Wasn't the A-10s been sold to the Saudi and Kuwaiti Air Forces post-ODS? So how did the crew handling Du ammo get sickness similar to radiation poisoning ? Ever heard of Gulf war vets having babies with defects due to their exposure. Btw they are no A-10s in use with Kuwait or Saudi. They are operated solely by the USAF. Edited October 24, 2004 by hellohikaru
Nied Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 What health hazards iirc only people who suffer from DU poisoning are those who were on the recieving end of cannon burst? The tungsten alloy rounds are probably going to be just as toxic as DU but going several times more expensive. Wasn't the A-10s been sold to the Saudi and Kuwaiti Air Forces post-ODS? So how did the crew handling Du ammo get sickness similar to radiation poisoning ? Ever heard of Gulf war vets having babies with defects due to their exposure. Btw they are no A-10s in use with Kuwait or Saudi. They are operated solely by the USAF. You can't get radiation poisoning from handeling DU rounds since they are not radioactive. Natural Uranium is radioactive because it contains small amounts of U238 (the highly radioactive isotope of Uranium), DU is a byproduct of enriching uranium for weapons or nuclear reactors, all of the radioactive U238 is removed, leaving nothing but the fairly benign U235. THe suposed health problems with DU come when the rounds are actually fired at a target. When a DU round hits it does so with enough velocity to ignite, and a thin layer of the round actually burns off into the atmosphere. In high concentrations the gaseous Uranium can be pretty toxic, but to get a toxic dose dose you'd need to be standing next to whatever is getting hit with a DU round, and at that point there'd be more imediate hazards to your health than gasseous Uranium. After disapating in the atmosphere the gaseous uranium eventualy precipitates to the ground as very fine dust, the long term effects of living in an area where this stuff has been floating around are unknown, on the one hand the levels of Uranium end up being only slightly higher than the natural background levels, on the other hand elevated levels of any heavy metal (not just uranium) aren't very good for your health.
Mislovrit Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) So how did the crew handling Du ammo get sickness similar to radiation poisoning ? How do you get rad sickness from something which is less radioactive than sunlight and table salt? If anything more likely they ingested or inhaled DU particles which is undisputably toxic like other heavy metals like lead and tungsten. Ever heard of Gulf war vets having babies with defects due to their exposure. Heard and read just everything about it for 12 years and counting. Edited October 24, 2004 by Mislovrit
hellohikaru Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) Not sure about this but the Iraqis didn't have use DU shells for their ammo AFAIK. But Abrams tank crews who use DU Silver bullets and certain support personnel were reported to show symptoms of toxic poisoning. Many soldiers may have been expose when a fire erupted in an Army base at Doha when ammunition was set on fire. But those were just plans to replace the A-10's DU ammo...i doubt it will ever get carried out due to the high cost in restocking them with new titanium or tungsten ammo. Edited October 24, 2004 by hellohikaru
Mislovrit Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) But Abrams tank crews who use DU Silver bullets and certain support personnel were reported to show symptoms of toxic poisoning. Links pleace hopefully not from an anti-DU source? Edited October 24, 2004 by Mislovrit
hellohikaru Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 I actually saw this from a documentary some time ago...probably discovery or BBC. Here is an article with some details on Du http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/fahey.htm Mislovit you aren't from the ammunition industry are you ?
David Hingtgen Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 Reading that leaves me really impressed by the M1A1's gun.
Mislovrit Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 Mislovit you aren't from the ammunition industry are you ? Fraid not, though the article does suffer from faultly logic regarding the radioactive aspect of DU.
Keiichi Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1's frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a (DU) sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion. Holy crap, sabot bouncing off at 400m! And yet somehow insurgents with RPGs are managing to knock out M1A2s in Iraq... guess it just goes to show how effective infantry will always be in combat...
F-ZeroOne Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) Reading that leaves me really impressed by the M1A1's gun. Probably not as much as I was by the 120mm Rifled Challenger gun - over 5000 metres? Wow! You can't armour a tank everywhere, at least not if you want it to move. Most of the information I've seen regarding knocked-out tanks in Iraq looks like side or rear hits, where the armour isn't so thick. Edited October 24, 2004 by F-ZeroOne
Knight26 Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 Most of the gulf war vets who got sick were near where there were orders to blow up Saddam's old ammunition bunkers, which were filled with chemical and bio weapons. That crap then got thrown into the air and precipitated down onto our troops, or they breathed it in, ingested it, etc... That is what caused the later illnesses, not the handling of DU rounds.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 24, 2004 Author Posted October 24, 2004 hmm. Are Du 30mm rounds good for A2A? I was just wondering because I know the A-10 kills anything on the ground with that gun and huge bullets....I was thinking...hmmm if the russian flanker and mig guns only take 7 rounds to shoot down a plane(said on discovery channel but I am still skeptical), then an A-10's gun must be like a magnum in A2A. Guys I was also wondering....was the FB-22 sans vertical stabs or did it retain it?
David Hingtgen Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 I doubt there'd be any point. The reason for DU is to penetrate heavy armor. Planes aren't armored, normal bullets work just fine. You want high-explosive, not armor-piercing.
hellohikaru Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 well...the Flanker/Fulcrum have the Gsh-301 30mm cannon. It is one of the lightest cannons out there yet it has a muzzule velocity of 860m/s. But it is said to be accurate due to the use of a laser rangefinder(won't want to blind the poor bastard) and can be set to fire automatically. Most powerful single barrel fighter gun is the KCA 30mm used by the JA37. Has a muzzle velocity of 1050 m/s. A few hits from those would tear any fighter to pieces. Here is some data comparing the various guns available. http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/akandata.htm
Mislovrit Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 (edited) Holy crap, sabot bouncing off at 400m! And yet somehow insurgents with RPGs are managing to knock out M1A2s in Iraq... guess it just goes to show how effective infantry will always be in combat... Mission and mobility killing M1A1/2s isn't all too hard especially if you don't mind dying in the process. Killing the M1A1/2s crews (while they're in the tanks) on the other hand is very difficult to do, even taking into account Golden BBs. Probably not as much as I was by the 120mm Rifled Challenger gun - over 5000 metres?It more to the quality of the crew then the gun especially even the British Army is now switching over to smoothbores. Edited October 25, 2004 by Mislovrit
Recommended Posts