nucleartiger Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 Seems like this debate thread would be interesting with some of the fellas over at the other board I frequent. For anyone looking for a strictly aviation related forum dealing with diecast models and toys like Corgi, Dragon, Amour, etc. Check out www.modelhangar.com It's a fairly new forum only about 92 members and we're looking for other warbird enthusiasts like you. My board name there is nucleartiger as well, hope to see some familiar faces.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 22, 2004 Author Posted November 22, 2004 Nuc, mind posting any dragon warbuirds you might have? I think this thread is for military aviation in general now. Anyone else think the F-14 will be retired later than 2007 and continue in a strike role?
Coota0 Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 Nuc, mind posting any dragon warbuirds you might have? I think this thread is for military aviation in general now. Anyone else think the F-14 will be retired later than 2007 and continue in a strike role? Where are you planning on the navy getting them? Lot's of parts are designed to wear out, once the wharehouses are empty and there are no more aircraft to connibilize you're screwed. Besides what' the point of having 2 or 3 squadrons of F-14s floating around as bomb trucks when nearly everything on the deck can pull air to mud duty.
David Hingtgen Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 Ingress/Egress speed is always nice. A loaded F-14B/D is MUCH faster than a loaded Hornet (baby or super). And doesn't have to refuel as many times on the mission.
Coota0 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Ingress/Egress speed is always nice. A loaded F-14B/D is MUCH faster than a loaded Hornet (baby or super). And doesn't have to refuel as many times on the mission. I'll concede that, but there is still a huge supply problem.
David Hingtgen Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Which can be 100% blamed on Cheney. If he hadn't ordered the jigs destroyed, Grumman could make any part needed. No plane can last long without spares, but most planes have spare parts made for YEARS after production ceases. Same with cars. F-14 didn't have that luxury, no spares were made, even for brand-new planes. You can still order new E-2 and A-6 parts (and whole fuselages if needed), the F-14 is one of the few planes that has had its jigs destroyed.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 23, 2004 Author Posted November 23, 2004 BUt if they went ahead with ASF-14totally NEW plane in itself(like super hornet to hornet), then perhaps the tomcat could still provide the fleet with a long range semi stealth interceptor with A-6 bombing capability and range of tomcat. Anyone find pics/? I only saw it once but cannot remember where...I don't even think MATS has it.
hellohikaru Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Guys What do you think of the world's largest interceptor ever...the Tu-128 Fiddler. Is it any good ?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 23, 2004 Author Posted November 23, 2004 I never herd much about it, and considering it's by tupoelov, I imagine it sucked. Didn''t really seem to pose much a threat during it's era, and US was mainly worried about the MIG 15-25 family back then.
hellohikaru Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 I don't have much in terms of performance for the Fiddler except that it could fly Mach 1.6. It was 27.43m long and had a 19.8m wingspan(sorry no time to convert to feet). That makes it somewhere between the sizes of a 737-200 and a B-58 Hustler. Heard it shot down some NATO recon aerostats(balloon) back in the 70s.
hellohikaru Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 I wonder what are they thinking of here ..Too much ammunition near expiry ?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 24, 2004 Author Posted November 24, 2004 WHOA!!! Bad ass CAS there~!!! WONDERFUL!!!! >...Man I knew phantom pilots complained of having no guns in vietnam, the SUU23 pod added too much drag...but iant that a bit overkill? I am sure it did GREAT for CAS though. Man that is wonderful!!
Zentrandude Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 having that many gunpods is very usefull like block out the sun with flying projectiles, instant paving of roads, turning a flying mofo into spreaded beef, flying backwards if the recoil of all guns firing can produce enough force (not a math wiz on that), and makes instant curly fries in seconds.
whytwolf Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Sweet Zombie Jesus! In the immortal words of Ron Popiel: "It slices, it dices..." Sean
F-ZeroOne Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 One word: "BBBBBRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!"
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Someone please tell me there are pics of that thing firing all guns. I wanna see it!!!
Mislovrit Posted November 25, 2004 Posted November 25, 2004 I never herd much about it, and considering it's by tupoelov, I imagine it sucked. Didn''t really seem to pose much a threat during it's era, and US was mainly worried about the MIG 15-25 family back then. Can't be that bad as it was in service for 30 years guarding Siberia. That makes it somewhere between the sizes of a 737-200 and a B-58 Hustler.The Fiddler is a derivative of the Tu-98 bomber. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...ssia/tu-128.htm
Zentrandude Posted November 25, 2004 Posted November 25, 2004 Hes Back. chooo choo choo chaa chaa chaaa chooo chooo chooo chaaa chaa chaa
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 28, 2004 Author Posted November 28, 2004 Yes but banned twice. Anyhoo lets do a battle of the stealths... F-117 vs JSF day one war, strike capability. and then.... I was reading World Air Power's free book with F-22 ADF by DID, and it said that a lot of new europlanes were made to counter the thread poised by the Su-35. So with that... Typhoon vs Su-35 and Rafale vs SU-35. and for kicks, F-16F vs SU-35
David Hingtgen Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 F-16F is almost pure air-to-ground IMHO. Big and bulky two-seater. (I Hate Block 60's BTW, I like the F-16 as a FIGHTER) I'll put a production Su-35 against most anything, for it has quite a few electronics/weapons upgrades compared to a 27---it's more than just canards.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 28, 2004 Author Posted November 28, 2004 wow really>? So it's A2A performance is dismal or, not as good as F-16A?(seems everyone like the F-16A or Cb50 as their fav A2A falcon). I just think the Block 60's look cool. THe SU-35 was originally called the SU-27M, and from what WAP magazine said, seemingly worried the shi* out of european NATO allies. I think it is a dramatic step above the baseline Su-27, even over the SU-27SMK. The cockpit alone is a massive improvement. Too bad in AC4/5 they make it insignifigant once you buy the SU-37, it's sad really. But then again in reality the SU-30MKI outdoes both of them. What I am interested in a lot now however is the SU-32IFN/34 series.
David Hingtgen Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 (edited) The Block 60's weigh more than Block 50's. They have an engine power increase over the 50's, but weight/drag is way up. Same as the F-16I's---they've got a lot of internal (and external) gadgets and avionics added on, and the F-16 is a very small fighter by current standards---they're getting "weighed down". Late Block 30 is still the best A2A Falcon, with Early Block 30 being 2nd best. Then Block 50. (JUST IMHO, mainly going by power/weight/drag---they all have the same weapons, radars are similar though not identical) Edited November 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 29, 2004 Author Posted November 29, 2004 DO blocks go by letter? Like is the block 30 still an F-16C?
David Hingtgen Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) Block 1 through 20 are A/B, 25 through 52+ are C/D, 60 and up are E/F. Block 25's are kind of oddballs, they look like C's but are far inferior to block 30 and later. A lot of 25's have been upgraded to mostly "late Block 30" standard, but lack the 30's engine, which is the main thing. 20's are also weird, basically being Block 52's in the "body" of an A. "Standard" A's are 1-15, and "standard" C's are 30 through 52. All the 20/25's are interims more or less. Best place for quick Block info: http://www.habu2.net/vipers/viperblocks/index.html Detailed Block info once you know what Block is what: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html Edited November 29, 2004 by David Hingtgen
HWR MKII Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 the F16 right now is C(one seater) and D (two seater). the block number designates the avionics packages and engine modifications. worked them for 7 years. now im on the 15 E talk about weapons overkill. max possible load out of 15 500lb bombs and 4 A2A missiles. never heard of an E or F model 16 they must be israeli or tiwanese upgrades.
David Hingtgen Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 F-16E and F-16F are the single-seat and dual-seat models of the Block 60, respectively. They're for the UAE. Only dual-seat ones have the avionics spine though. (Most people think they all do, since the F actually came out before the E)
HWR MKII Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) actually the israelis have been putting the dorsal spine on B models for decades. and the "external goodies"like the CFT packs are removeable. i still dont know where the E/F designation is coming from i have never seen an AF pub with them in them and i was stationed at the main depot where these mods were installed on all export F16s. the spine in particular is mainly put on D models. rarely you may see a prototype pic of the C model with it but i hav not seen any in service. ive talked to israeli ground crew and saudi ground crew who havnt even seen it. right now the saudis and israelis make their own so those may be the E/F models your talking about but any country we sell our old ones to get refurbished A/B models(you can tell by the thickness on the base of the tail on the A models)with block 50-60 avionics and engine upgrades on them. Edited November 29, 2004 by HWR MKII
David Hingtgen Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) E/F is a recent name change for the Block 60, which was formerly the F-16C/D Block 60. USAF has none with none on order, you're not likely to see many "official" references to it. Block 60 is currently only for the UAE. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html The first Block 60's had the dorsal spine, and many people (and publications) assume and write that it is standard for the Block 60, but it is not. Edited November 29, 2004 by David Hingtgen
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 29, 2004 Author Posted November 29, 2004 HWR got any pics? Last time I saw a mud hen like that, it was in my Jane's F-15 sim. But that was many ages ago. The mud hen's got a great payload...but let's ssee this... F-111 vs F-15E For sure the F-15E's got better self defense capabilities. But how about long range strike? Perhaps the F-111 has a better speed advantage, since it can carry some of its payload internally. And for that matter,... F-105D vs F-111A. Strike role. Presumably, the thud has better A2A self defence(more manueverable?) And now that the F-15E has been brought up F-15C vs F-15E A2A. How well do they compare and contrast in close in knife fighting and in long range intercept? Which would be better. I know F-15E has 9g limit and airframe stressed for it as well as higher rate engines, and that the CFT can be removed, but how well does it perform against the C?
Knight26 Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 You know the more I look at the F-16 CFTs the more I dislike them. Not only are butt fugly but I can't see how they don't just thrash the aerodynamics of the aircraft. Also with how they rise vertically as they move outboard just seems so wrong and like it will create alot of drag and airflow problems. I realize there was no other place to mount them but there had to be a better solution then this.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted November 29, 2004 Author Posted November 29, 2004 How about underneath? Or perhaps start furtherback after the wingmounts? I don't know much about aerodynamicc physics but this would look "right" to me. Then again David said the block 60's got higher rate engines but it's to counter the drag imposed by the CFT and other things that added the weight. To me it makes it look less "sexy" than the F-16 block 50 and below. Anyone see the F-2 +? Or something like that, it was in a japanese ad at a aerospace show overseas and had a bunch of armnaments as well as CFT's as well. Well doesn't look too good for the F-2's future anyways as it seems the japanese govt is not too happy with their FSX and says the F-15J can do the same job for less money, so they cancelld some orders for the F-2.
David Hingtgen Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 F-16 CFT's are fugly as hell IMHO. I think they are supposed to be "minimal" drag for the amount of fuel carried(compared to say, adding more drop tanks under the wings), unlike the F-15's which affect the area-rule of the plane to the point that drag is reduced under many conditions. F-111 vs F-15E. Well, F-15E was brand-new and at minimal capability in Desert Storm--a lot of "priority" targets went to F-111's since they could self-designate and had much experience with low-level/night ops. F-15E wasn't even really in service yet, but they sent them because they knew it'd do well, even if not FULLY operational. One big thing for that war was bunker-busters and any BIG Paveway. So big/long/heavy even the F-111's had problems carrying them, much less F-15E's. I think it was ONE per plane, regardless. Asymmetry problems, too. F-111 can outrun an F-15 (and most anything on the planet) at low-level, and can match the F-15 at high altitude. F-111's are very, very fast planes.
HWR MKII Posted November 29, 2004 Posted November 29, 2004 shin i dont have any pics of that. they dont load them like that unless they are deployed and usually the common load is typically 4x gbu 12 on stations lc and rc 3 and 6 a JDAM on the centerline and wing bags. the bunker buster you guys speak of is the gbu 28 and is 2 2000 lb BLU 109 bombs welded together with a gbu 24 guidance unit and a gbu 10 fin assembly. its mainly loaded on station 5. you could also load up 12x 82 bomb body munitions on the CFTs and 3x 84/109 bomb bodies on the pylons. actually the only place i have seen the cft on the 16 is in pics. i havnt seen them used in the field. maybe the uae countries use them for long distance travel and take them off when they get to their area of operation.
hellohikaru Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Guys what do you think of this Land Carrier thing from Sintani Kaoru ?
Knight26 Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 I remember that it is from the area-88 manga, very cool but completely impractical.
Recommended Posts