Knight26 Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Actaully neid the F-404 and F-414 are the exact same size, its the engine mounting lugs that changed. So while a F-414 could fit in the engine bay of a standard hornet there is no way you could mount it in there because of the changed mounting brackets.
David Hingtgen Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Quick little update: It seems that, after several years, Dragon has actually put small holes on the fuselage corners of their F-15, to allow those previously-useless Sparrows that had posts on their fins to attach. This is different from other recent Dragon F-15's, which had Sparrows permanently glued on to the fuselage. Of course, Dragon decided to do this on their newest release, which represents a 2003 or so F-15C in the new Mod Eagle scheme, and should be loaded with nothing but AMRAAM's, not Sparrows. Of course, this latest change to the mold makes it impossible to load it with AMRAAMs. "Dragon---only we can mix up parts and variants this much" Can't wait to see AMRAAMs on a Tomcat, I just KNOW they'll do it someday...
Skull Leader Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 when my 103 bird comes in, I'll let you know if it's got some AMRAAMS
Lightning Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 I miss the F-4......kinda funny it can still outrun half the new planes out there. is there anybody at all still flying them? Can civvie pilots fly them w/o the weapons on them?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 13, 2005 Author Posted August 13, 2005 I miss the F-4......kinda funny it can still outrun half the new planes out there.is there anybody at all still flying them? Can civvie pilots fly them w/o the weapons on them? 320031[/snapback] THe JASDF still flies them, same with greece, maybe turkey, and I think South Korea still flies it's F-4D's. A good number of nations still use it.
Skull Leader Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Iran still has a good number of F-4Es also. Germany is also still flying them.
David Hingtgen Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Germany's F-4's are very potent. F-18 radar, very modern ECM, new HUD, retrofitted HOTAS, digital displays, all coupled with AMRAAM's. At BVR, that would make it among the very best there is. Agility doesn't mean much at 20 miles.
Apollo Leader Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 I miss the F-4......kinda funny it can still outrun half the new planes out there.is there anybody at all still flying them? Can civvie pilots fly them w/o the weapons on them? 320031[/snapback] At least as of a few years ago, General Steve Ritchie, the last USAF fighter ace (all 5 of his kills were MiG-21's), was appearing at air shows in a privately owned and funded F-4C or D made to look like one of the ones he piloted with MiG kills and all.
Lightning Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 I miss the F-4......kinda funny it can still outrun half the new planes out there.is there anybody at all still flying them? Can civvie pilots fly them w/o the weapons on them? 320031[/snapback] At least as of a few years ago, General Steve Ritchie, the last USAF fighter ace (all 5 of his kills were MiG-21's), was appearing at air shows in a privately owned and funded F-4C or D made to look like one of the ones he piloted with MiG kills and all. 320129[/snapback] neato! you know what was kinda neat about the pre -4D's, even though they didnt come with the internal gun? You could mount TWO gunpods on the dang thing instead of one! (although I have yet to see a pic of one with that loadout)
Commander McBride Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 I miss the F-4......kinda funny it can still outrun half the new planes out there.is there anybody at all still flying them? Can civvie pilots fly them w/o the weapons on them? 320031[/snapback] At least as of a few years ago, General Steve Ritchie, the last USAF fighter ace (all 5 of his kills were MiG-21's), was appearing at air shows in a privately owned and funded F-4C or D made to look like one of the ones he piloted with MiG kills and all. 320129[/snapback] neato! you know what was kinda neat about the pre -4D's, even though they didnt come with the internal gun? You could mount TWO gunpods on the dang thing instead of one! (although I have yet to see a pic of one with that loadout) 320146[/snapback] I always thought it'd be really cool to put a gunpod on every pylon....
David Hingtgen Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 (edited) 5 gunpods has been done for airshows (because it looks cool) though 2 is the max for actual combat. (Because they're nearly 2,000lbs each) Also, they have such recoil that 5 gunpods is equal to 20,000lbs of thrust---opposite the direction of flight. That'd make you stall pretty quickly. Final comment: In Vietnam, the Navy had a much better kill ratio than the USAF, despite never having guns, and never using gunpods. Edited August 14, 2005 by David Hingtgen
Skull Leader Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 (edited) yeah, I don't think anyone would deny the "coolness" of seeing a Phantom fire 5 gunpods at once, but the pilot would have to be going pretty fast, and probably in a slightly nose down position to keep from stalling the thing out immediately. ... then again, if the airbrakes just weren't slowing you down fast enough.... Someone had a picture of an F-4 with a "5 lead" configuration... and I want to say it was earlier in this thread. I'll have to go check. Edited August 14, 2005 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 Those of you up on Flankers know that the -30MKI is by far the best version, so here's the latest "watch and be awed" video. Only 800K and one manuever, but it appears to be a kulbit going into a post-stall roll. Or something like that. http://www.archakov.com/video/su30mki_2005.avi
Skull Leader Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 (edited) Those of you up on Flankers know that the -30MKI is by far the best version, so here's the latest "watch and be awed" video. Only 800K and one manuever, but it appears to be a kulbit going into a post-stall roll. Or something like that. http://www.archakov.com/video/su30mki_2005.avi 320975[/snapback] ... lol, and they whined that the US is gonna sell Pakistan more F-16s... why are they so worried? a 30MKI would totally ride down a lawn-dart. Especially a lawn-dart flown by a Pakistani pilot (who will probably fill his piddle pack the first time his radar pings an Indian Flanker screaming in at him) Edited August 17, 2005 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted September 3, 2005 Posted September 3, 2005 Hurricane Katrina note: USS Harry Truman has left its entire assigned airwing behind, will briefly stop at Jacksonville and fill the flight deck with all helicopters it can carry, then go to New Orleans.
Skull Leader Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 Hurricane Katrina note:USS Harry Truman has left its entire assigned airwing behind, will briefly stop at Jacksonville and fill the flight deck with all helicopters it can carry, then go to New Orleans. 325606[/snapback] That's a LOT of helos.... that should help a great deal. With FEMA dragging their @sses, it's good to see the hardliners in the military (who are accustomed to getting instant action from orders) are stepping up and taking charge.
David Hingtgen Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 Not 100% official, but pretty close: Singapore has selected the F-15 over the Rafale, will also get 200 AMRAAM's. Hmmn, I wonder if it'll be called the F-15S. GE or PW? CFT's or no?
Mislovrit Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) That's a LOT of helos.... that should help a great deal. How much bigger is the USS Harry Truman compare to the USS KittyHawk?Not 100% official, but pretty close:Singapore has selected the F-15 over the Rafale, will also get 200 AMRAAM's. Hmmn, I wonder if it'll be called the F-15S. GE or PW? CFT's or no? 326334[/snapback] I hope the F-15 design would be modernize at least to partially reduce it's RCS. Edited September 7, 2005 by Mislovrit
hellohikaru Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) The Singaporean F-15 should it win would be called F-15T. F-15S is an expensive piece of crap sold to the Saudis. Nothing more than an F-15D dressed up as an E Anyway back to the RSAF fighter competition i heard the Rafale is the favourite. If the F-15T wins then it is either politics or the RSAF needing quick airframe delivery. 5 gunpods has been done for airshows (because it looks cool) though 2 is the max for actual combat. (Because they're nearly 2,000lbs each) Not true. Some F-4C were loaded up with about 10 or more for CAS, albeit the smaller SUU-11 7.62mm. I think i mentioned this twice before. Edited September 7, 2005 by hellohikaru
David Hingtgen Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 Ack, can't belive I forgot the F-15S already exists. I always just think of "Saudi F-15C's". Can never remember the F-15Eish one. F-15T is quasi-earmarked for Taiwan I believe. I have never heard of F-4's with SUU-11's before, but a quick google gives a few credible hits. Have any info/pics? I'd be very interested.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted September 7, 2005 Author Posted September 7, 2005 Tornado ECR vs EA-18G Growler As far as defense...I think the ECR has a gun and the Growler has AMRAAM and Swinders. I think the ECR can accomodate them too. Anyways, both have all that electronic warfare stuff, but all in all, which would be the better jammer and SEAD aircraft? The ECR's definitely got the speed advantage so it could run away faster. F-20 Tigershark vs Gripen Both lightweight fighters and can be exported unfortunately at the time northrop got shafted again. Either way which would be the better fighter? Both have the same engine, and sure the gripen might have more modern avionics but who is to say the F-20 could not have provisional upgrades? That and....badcataviation.com is offering the 1/72 "EZ kit" warbirds and jets. These include the corsair, some offscale bombers, and....... a MIG-29 Sure they are toyetic but unlike a dragon model, these can be played with without fear of messing up a paint job or dropping it or stuff like that. There are no molded missles but for less than 10$ you really get what you pay for. Sure it is made for kids but there are not many manufactureres giving the MIG-29 some love. (Man I wish the Force One days.......metal...playable, durable....variety....cheap.....there was even a MIG-29 made by a rival brand!)
hellohikaru Posted September 7, 2005 Posted September 7, 2005 F-4C with multiple minigun pods http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...t=20&p=263988 There are also other instances of F-4s carrying miniguns but not quite as many. I guess they used whatever was available. Rocket shortage ? Heck they even sent F-105s with box-finned bombs or just the internal gun to keep up the sortie rate. Tornado ECR vs EA-18G GrowlerAs far as defense...I think the ECR has a gun and the Growler has AMRAAM and Swinders. I think the ECR can accomodate them too. Anyways, both have all that electronic warfare stuff, but all in all, which would be the better jammer and SEAD aircraft? The ECR's definitely got the speed advantage so it could run away faster. F-20 Tigershark vs Gripen ECR is gunless. They only carry HARMs beside the standard pair of bottle rockets. Maybe it will get IRIS-T as well. I don't think AAMs are really so important for a defence suppression platform. It does distract from the overall mission. As for the Tigershark and Gripen i know both of them can be upgraded but the JAS-39 can mount a bigger radar antenna so the Gripen has an edge here. In a dogfight i think both are equal assuming equal levels of avionics. Both are also highly underrated fighters.
Skull Leader Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Tornado ECR vs EA-18G GrowlerAs far as defense...I think the ECR has a gun and the Growler has AMRAAM and Swinders. I think the ECR can accomodate them too. Anyways, both have all that electronic warfare stuff, but all in all, which would be the better jammer and SEAD aircraft? The ECR's definitely got the speed advantage so it could run away faster. F-20 Tigershark vs Gripen Both lightweight fighters and can be exported unfortunately at the time northrop got shafted again. Either way which would be the better fighter? Both have the same engine, and sure the gripen might have more modern avionics but who is to say the F-20 could not have provisional upgrades? 326445[/snapback] ECR over the growler any day of the week. It has only what it needs to get the job done and the speed to get the hell out of there when it's done. While the growler is still struggling to break Mach 1 on it's egress, the ECR crew has already requested landing clearance and has begun discussing what they're gonna throw on the grill that evening. While I don't know a whole lot about either aircraft, from my limited knowledge I'd have to say the Gripen probably would take care of the tigershark. Roughly the same size, but everything I've ever read about the Gripen points to it being one hell of a maneuverable plane
Skull Leader Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 (edited) How much bigger is the USS Harry Truman compare to the USS KittyHawk? 326403[/snapback] The Truman is a Nimitz-class carrier, where the "Shitty kitty" is a *sigh* kitty hawk class. While I don't know how many helos you could fit on a Kitty Hawk class carrier hangar and flight deck, you could probably add about 15 more than that on a nimitz class carrier. (that's above and below-deck) Only two Kitty Hawk class carriers left in the fleet: The USS Kitty Hawk, and the USS John F Kennedy (well, the Big J is technically a one-off, but it's practically a Kitty Hawk Class). All the others are Nimitz class. Once the 'hawk retires, the Kennedy is set to become the new CVW-5 carrier forward-deployed in Japan (they don't want any of our Nuke-carriers sitting in Yokosuka harbor). I don't know what will happen after we retire "Big John" though. Edited September 9, 2005 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 (edited) The turbines/shafts/screws are all the same in all US supercarriers, "Method of making steam" is the only difference. No reason we couldn't make a conventionally-powered Nimitz AFAIK, the power requirement is the same as the Kitty Hawk class. Just need boilers. And aviation fuel capacity would be reduced to make room for the ship's fuel. Could always just wait until one of the older Nimitz' need refuelling, and instead of refuelling it, use that money to rip out the reactor and install boilers. They're half ripped apart anyways during major refit/refuelling, might as well convert one of them into a Kennedy replacement. (Though I wonder about routing new exhausts all through a pre-existing Nimitz class hull) Edited September 9, 2005 by David Hingtgen
Skull Leader Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 After it was all said and done, it would probably just be cheaper to build a new steamer all together. I doubt they'll go that route though. They'll just start parking the carrier several miles offshore and start ferrying in sailors to and from by boat and COD (when they work ).
GRAND CANNON Posted September 12, 2005 Posted September 12, 2005 I don't know where the heck put these, so I hope this is a good thread, but these are nice pics. I don't believe they're fake.....they almost look too clean, don't they..... Well....if these have been seen or in the wrong place, let me know and I'll remove 'em.
David Hingtgen Posted September 12, 2005 Posted September 12, 2005 Those are fairly well-known pics. However, they are messed up a bit and I often think I'm the only one who notices. They're shrunk horizontally, as if someone resized them but didn't remember to check the "maintain proportions" box. It's not really obvious, but is best seen in the bottom photo--look at that F-15, it's almost a chibi F-15 or something. The thing is, there is no "correct" version out there AFAIK. The F-22 is longer and sleeker than these photos suggest.
Mislovrit Posted September 13, 2005 Posted September 13, 2005 The turbines/shafts/screws are all the same in all US supercarriers, "Method of making steam" is the only difference. No reason we couldn't make a conventionally-powered Nimitz AFAIK, the power requirement is the same as the Kitty Hawk class. Just need boilers. More feasible to redesigned a LHD to have CTOL capability than is reduced the functionally of a supercarrier. And aviation fuel capacity would be reduced to make room for the ship's fuel. Huge answer to why nuclear is better.
F-ZeroOne Posted September 13, 2005 Posted September 13, 2005 (edited) What are those bulges on the underside of the wings? ECM/ECCM/electronics stuff? Or is it some sort of visual illusion? Edited September 13, 2005 by F-ZeroOne
VF-19 Posted September 13, 2005 Posted September 13, 2005 What are those bulges on the underside of the wings? ECM/ECCM/electronics stuff? Or is it some sort of visual illusion? 327950[/snapback] The ones on the trailing edges of the wings and tail are probably the mechanisms that move the flaps, elevators and ailerons on the wings and tail surfaces. The two bulges on the body are most probably the wheel wells.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted September 15, 2005 Author Posted September 15, 2005 Ace Combat Zero:The Belkan War ANNOUNCED! It's set to premier at the tokyo game show this weekend! http://www.videogamerx.net/bbs/data/gamescreenshot/ac0.jpg It was also announced by gamestop and some other sites. *Note, an Ace Combat 5.5 listing is up at cduniverse and walmart for release in november...this listing was discovered earlier this summer and people are starting to think that Ace combat 5.5 is really for Ace combat 0.* The story is that the principality of Belka attacks Ustio, and you play a mercenary for the govt. of Ustio. It takes place 15 years before Ace Combat 5.
hellohikaru Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Is this for real ? 15 years ago i hope they don't include some of the modern aircraft and give us some classics like the A-7, F-111, MiG-23, F-8 and BAC Lightning.etc Probably end up hard to sell to those crazy Raptor-only youngsters.
VF-19 Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Here's a not-quite-super model of an aircraft: The old first release Airfix F-14a in wolfpack markings. I picked it up for $5 on a "what the hey" whim. First impressions: It looks like a F-14... Sort of. The cockpit is somewhat Ok for the period, and at least the pilot and backseater's panels look halfway decent. Panel lines are raised, but it's hard to tell about the detail on the plane, as the plastic is moulded in bright white. I guess I'll see it when I give it a coat of grey. No wheel well detail (and not surprising), so it'll be gear up and in flight. Surprisingly, the wings are geared both together and to the forward winglets that pop out at high speed. So when you sweep the wings back the little winglets open up with the main wing. Kinda neat. Also surprising about the kit is that the decals have survived thirty years in storage, and the test decal responded very well to Microset, then Microsol, and then Solvaset. If I keep my pace up, I'll probably finish the kit in a couple of weeks.
RFT Posted September 15, 2005 Posted September 15, 2005 Is this for real ?15 years ago i hope they don't include some of the modern aircraft and give us some classics like the A-7, F-111, MiG-23, F-8 and BAC Lightning.etc Probably end up hard to sell to those crazy Raptor-only youngsters. 328591[/snapback] on of the screenshots in this image shows a SAAB Draken, which is a pretty old plane. however, there's a eurofighter on the same page... (as well as F-15 and F-18)
Recommended Posts