Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dysko on September 29, 2006, 11:42:20 am
-
This discussion was born on the "Italianessness" thread due to curiosity, but I think I should make this more direct:
What's your favourite airplane?
Mine is the F-16, but I also like other stuff like F-14, Typhoon and Su-27.
-
SR-71 Blackbird. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-71) Honourable mention goes to the Harrier and any recent Sukhoi.
-
Jets or anything? I gotta say I love the F-15, but if I had to choose my favorite "looker" it's the Mig-3.
-
When I was little I enjoyed the Mig-3. Maybe I could find my old pictures :lol:
The SR-71 is a God aircraft. I have a model just in front of me, near the monitor.
-
When I was little I enjoyed the Mig-3. Maybe I could find my old pictures :lol:
Maybe he is talking about the MiG-3 from WWII? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3)
In Ace Combat 3 there was a fighter called Aurora I saw on a recent number of La Macchina Del Tempo.
It's not always a fanta-sim...
Errr... the Aurora wasn't a fighter. It was a concept bomber. It should have flied above Mach 3, at very high altitude and with a very large range of action, it should have been stealth and VTOL. Obviously, technology doesn't allow to put all that stuff in a single plane, so it evolved in a plane that is only stealth with a large range of action: the B-2 bomber. See http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm
-
I was talking about AC3's Aurora,which was a fighter...
My attempts of drawing a Mig-3...I'll never forget them! I like the cockpit of that fighter,because it's so close to the timone di coda.
-
Brewster B-239, at least for now. Excellent aircraft.
Though I have to point out that it was not Brewster Buffalo, which was a ridiculous fighter plane. Its type name was B-339, and it - along with F2A-2 - sucked bad. B-239 was much closer to prototype F2A-1 - so close that actually the prototype model (XF2A-1) was included in the planes that were used by Finnish pilots...
In case you didn't know, Finnish Brewster pilots scored a kill-to-death ratio of 496 russian planes shot down against 19 lost Brewsters. Ie. approximately 26:1 K/D ratio.
It had excellent maneuverability, good cockpit visibility, it was easy to fly, had relatively good armament (earlier, 3x .50 + .303 machine guns, later 4x .50 machine guns), and it was extremely reliable plane - the engines could be used much longer than planned. It could also take quite abeating until disintegrating, although pilot protection wasn't the best of words. It was also quite fast and durable in descent, too, even if it wasn't the fastest fighter in level flight.
Of course, the success of B-239 has also *something* to do with pilots and tactics, but it does tell something of the plane as well. The highest scoring Finnish ace, Ilmari Juutilainen, who flew 437 sorties, scoring 94½ official kills - without EVER getting hit by enemy fire.
Although once his Bf-109 was damaged by friendly AAA, so he had to land. :nervous:
That's my absolute favourite plane at least for now.
Newer planes can't compete, although some come close. :nod:
Another very nice plane I'd like to have when I get older and filthy rich is PIK-20D...
-
Do you like the Arado,used by German Air Forces in WWII?
-
I like either the B2 Spirit bomber, or the F117 fighter.... ;7
-
Do you like the Arado,used by German Air Forces in WWII?
Who, me?
What Arado are you referring to? Arado Ar-196 If you're referring to the waterplane... No, not really. :ick: It's an ugly maritime recon plane with lousy specs and armament. And it looks kinda ugly, too.
On the other hand, Arado Ar-234 is completely different story... Being the first jet powered bomber aircraft and all. :nod:
-
Since we are talking about nice WWII planes, take a look to this site: http://www.luft46.com/. Those are secret planes of the Luftwaffe that never flew. Some are very nice-looking.
-
(http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvrmstct.jpg)
(http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvmstcut.jpg)
:lol:
That is very... ergonomic and useful construction, I dare say. Mistel on a mistel, eh? Ingenious.
Must've been very nice to pilot that cruise missile. :nervous:
Other pearl:
(http://www.luft46.com/bv/3bb202.jpg)
Asymmetric design FTW. Can't say much else... it would've been a pain to actually pilot that thing in rotated-wing mode. Using the ailerons would've had effect not only on roll, but also pitch, when another aileron was forward and another was behind... :rolleyes:
-
SR-71 Blackbird. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-71) Honourable mention goes to the Harrier and any recent Sukhoi.
I've always loved the blackbird, since i was like 8!
But Im also a fan of the new Airbus AX whatever its called (the double decker one)
-
Sukhoi Su-47 "Berkut" FTW!!
-
In Combat Flight Simulator 3 there were two German X crafts.One was a Gotha,basically a small B-2 Spirit. The other had to eliche, one ahead and one behind.In fact is reported that bailing off was difficult,because the pilot had to cut off the second elica first...
When I was little I read something about a Viper(I don't remember the G. name,only its translation)a piloted rocket launched like a V1 armed with small rockets.The fighter had to launch its rockets on American bombers,then it was useless and went down,losing most of its parts.Then the Germans would have re-used the other parts...
-
Mobius...are you talking about the Dornier Do-335?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
The rear tail section actually has explosive charges that, on ignition of the ejection seat, blows the tail section off so as to allow the seat and pilot to safely pass behind the aircraft. This was one of the first aircraft with an ejection seat and the whole system, although complex, worked quite well. The Do-335 is actually the highest performing piston engine prop fighter developed. Reason being that it has two very powerful engines (for the weight) but with the drag consequences of only one engine (plus a propeller).
My favourite aircraft are the Hawker Tempest (and Typhoon), Supermarine Spitfire, F4U Corsair, F-18 Hornet, Focke Wulf FW190, Tornado, and Eurofighter Typhoon. I have a developing interest in the F-22 and F-35...but they are still curiousities and not my favourites.
-
Yes! It was the Do-335!!!
Your favourite planes,except for the F/A-18 I never loved at 100%,were my favourites too.I prefer the Typhoon to the Tempest.
-
I prefer the Typhoon to the Tempest.
They aren't that much different, you know. Mainly the Typhoon was a bit shorter, had straight-edged, smaller wings and only straight engine types.
The Tempest had elliptic wings, slightly bigger than Typhoon's, somewhat longer fuselage, and one of the Tempest production models - Tempest F Mk.2 - had a radial engine, Bristol Centaurus.
I personally like the tempest more, but dislike the Typhoon/Tempest family.
I much prefer an elegant, maneuverable and accurate plane - like B-239, despite its slowth in level flight... In comparison, planes like Typhoon, Tempest and for example P-47 models are crude, inaccurate and loud affairs.
I prefer accuracy over big guns. :p That's also why I don't feel the same attraction to current war planes as I feel towards WWI/II planes... There's no skill in busting enemy with a missile.
...I'm talking about computer games, obviously. I enjoy more peppering vital systems of enemy plane with .50cal's than blasting them from 100 miles with a missile. In real life, I would use the missile much rather... :nervous:
-
(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_9611STTRAA.jpg)
omg rutan is a shivan!!!!!
and of course
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10-19990422-f-7910d-518.jpg)
the arab smasher!
-
Since we are talking about nice WWII planes, take a look to this site: http://www.luft46.com/. Those are secret planes of the Luftwaffe that never flew. Some are very nice-looking.
who says we're ALL talking about WWII planes?
I like either the B2 Spirit bomber, or the F117 fighter.... ;7
-
My fav is the F-15, but I also like the YF-23, XB-70, and the X-31 EFM.
-
I prefer the Typhoon to the Tempest.
They aren't that much different, you know. Mainly the Typhoon was a bit shorter, had straight-edged, smaller wings and only straight engine types.
The Tempest had elliptic wings, slightly bigger than Typhoon's, somewhat longer fuselage, and one of the Tempest production models - Tempest F Mk.2 - had a radial engine, Bristol Centaurus.
I personally like the tempest more, but dislike the Typhoon/Tempest family.
I much prefer an elegant, maneuverable and accurate plane - like B-239, despite its slowth in level flight... In comparison, planes like Typhoon, Tempest and for example P-47 models are crude, inaccurate and loud affairs.
I prefer accuracy over big guns. :p That's also why I don't feel the same attraction to current war planes as I feel towards WWI/II planes... There's no skill in busting enemy with a missile.
...I'm talking about computer games, obviously. I enjoy more peppering vital systems of enemy plane with .50cal's than blasting them from 100 miles with a missile. In real life, I would use the missile much rather... :nervous:
The Tempest is a very very refined version of the Typhoon. Tempest having laminar flow wings, vastly improved roll rate (the Typhoon had one of the lowest roll rates of any WWII single engine fighter sharing last place with the A6M Zero), four of the most destructive 20mm cannons of the war, and one of the highest top speeds at low and medium altitude of the WWII fighters. Compared to those at saw service (so excluding the Do-335) the Tempest is faster at low and medium altitude than all but the Lavochkin La-7, FW190D-9 and specially modified P-51 Mustangs.
Its a good plane :)
I'm a bit of a fan.
The B-239 was a gem of a little fighter (Fins called it Pearl of the Sky) but I think they got the most mileage out of it because they had some damn good tacticians. They trained for hit and run passes against unsuspecting Russian fighters and their gunnery skills were well developed. That and the fact that at that point of the war...the Finns were fighting a greatly diminished VVS which didn't pick itself up from the office corps purges (from just before the war) and its brief fall behind in aircraft technology until 1944. Although even in 1944 the Russians had quite a bit of a problem with the Finns in the air and on the ground.
I can see why you like the plane...its a great little thing. Do you have Forgotten Battles or anything of the Il-2 series? The Gulf of Finland and the B-239 are extremely well developed maps and campaigns.
I'm a bit of a aviation buff :)
-
I've got Forgotten Battles, AEP and PF... though I do prefer the European theatre. Specifically, in Gulf of Finland maps, bcause they really are very well made - except for that huge PLAIN north of Lappeenranta....
Of American airplanes, I genuinely like only B-239 and P-40 models - other feel like flying a barn door with huge engine attached to it. Of Finnish Air Force fighters in the game, B-239 is definitely the nicest one to fly - Bf-109 G6/10 models are far behind, even though they are faster and climb better and have better armament... I do better in B-239 against those pesky I-16's than in Bf-109.
If only I found a way to reduce the dispersion in Brewster's Brownings... according to veterans who have tried IL-2 Sturmovik:FB, they say it is a very realistic experience (!) on full realism settings, but they say that B-239 guns were more accurate and didn't have a lot of dispersion set into them, so in this regard the IL-2 FB is a bit off...
And yeah, I know the Tempest is technically very different from Typhoon, I was concentrating on the appearance changes.
Other planes I like to fly are the La-5(FN) and La-7...they are excellent planes to fly, very fast and offer good maneuverability. Wide speed range of optimal maneuverability.
I'm also kinda aviation enthusiast... I have in my dreams the idea of getting aviation lisence for at least glide planes in some phase of my life, and powered flight after that... :nod: I have had the honour of getting high in a two-seater glider, two flights á 50 € and worth every cent. It would get cheaper if I had a lisence and could get a seasonal card or something like that. But boy, was it cool in caps lock. First flight I got to try level flight and some turns - it's not as easy as in simulators, I just say. Keeping the plane going straight in the air flow really needs some delicate stick-rudder co-ordination. It's very easy to overcorrect the rudder movements, and then you got the plane swaying from side to side in a very interesting way.
Paradoxally, proper level flight is actually just as difficult as performing a controlled turn...
Then we did a pair of loops and two vertical turns. Or, the flight instructor in the kitchen did, I was just a passenger in the front cockpit... Awesome is too small a word for the experience. On second flight, I got to fly a bit more, and even partially do the final approach turn.
If you EVER get a chance to try gliders... carpe diem. It's so great that your ancestors will enjoy it. Or, um, at least I feel that way. :p
-
I forget what patch it was...but if you have PF (ver 3.0 or later) the Brewsters gun dispersion is FAR smaller. All of the Browning .50cal guns got that fixed a while ago. It was waaaay off. Now its much more focused although your convergence distance has alot to do with that too.
I'd love to get in a plane...I haven't actually been in a real one until very recently. Finally hopped on a 737 and took a trip...first in a long time. Anyways yeah a glider or a small plane would be absolutely fantastic. I have an uncle with a pilots license so I hope to go up sometime. But scheduling its hard and getting good weather is harder.
-
I love the F-14. That thing is just plain sexy.
I also think the (real life) Aurora is awesome. Then there is Bird of Prey and Tacit Blue, but you didn't hear those names from me... :nervous:
-
SR-71, B-2, F15E, MiG-29, Su-(forgot which one), Yak-41, A-10A Thunderbolt, F111...
Maybe more if I remembered what they were... :blah:
edit1: F117 :lol:
-
Sukhoi SU-47
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Sukhoi_Su-47.jpg)
-
I'd have to say the F-22a and the A-10
-
F-14, A-10, and the Russian SU-37.
-
Since we are talking about nice WWII planes, take a look to this site: http://www.luft46.com/. Those are secret planes of the Luftwaffe that never flew. Some are very nice-looking.
http://www.luft46.com/misc/zrammer.html
Best. plane. design. ever
-
Bah, Brewster...crap plane. You've become enamored of the manuverablity, which is the same tactical trap that ultimately killed the Japanese. Go fly a Gloster Gladiator you freak! :p
I think too much playing of Harpoon has given me a love for strike planes and fixed-wing ASW. Fighters make headlines, bombers make history. The A-6E was a nice plane, best carrier strike aircraft ever built; I was sad to see them go to the boneyard. The prize for fixed-wing ASW goes to the Brit MR.2A Nimrod, narrowly edging out both the P-3C Orion and the TU-142 Bear F. The Nimrod won out for using the Brit's Stingray aerial torpedo rather then Mk46s. The Orion is an all-around good aircraft stuck carrying weak aerial torpedos, while the Bear has stupidly huge range and payload but no option for air-to-surface missiles and crappy sensors.
-
(http://www.largemodelassociation.com/images/richard_rawl_spitfire/spitfly.jpg)
'nuff said.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/2006JASGripen2JM.jpg/504px-2006JASGripen2JM.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen)
I look like an idiot in this pic, but it's still one of me in a JAS cockpit:
(http://www.hexellent.com/files/3/jagjas.jpg)
but the hawker hunter is nice looking too.
-
(http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6391/meikalainenyp4.th.jpg) (http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=meikalainenyp4.jpg)
That would be me.
Nice plane, that one... :D ASK21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher_ASK_21), two-seater glider owned by Polytechnichians' Aviation Club [PIK].
-
The Su-27 is a thing of beauty.
-
OV-10 Bronco (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco.jpg)
-
OV-10 Bronco (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco.jpg)
Ah... I always liked twin tail aircraft. Just look at a P-38... that's beautiful!
If here in Italy flying licenses weren't so ****ing expensive, and if it weren't already out of production, I'd buy a Cessna 337 Skymaster. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster)
-
I don't think there's a place on earth where learning to fly is cheap.
-
I don't think there's a place on earth where learning to fly is cheap.
But here in Italy there are taxes over taxes over taxes for everything related to flying. And the air space is very restricted for general aviation. Keep in consideration that there is also a tax for landing and for handling (on small airports, on bigger airports landing is forbidden), and you won't be wondered that many Europeans pilot avoid Italy for general aviation.
-
okay, since this is probably the best place to put this, which do you prefer, Stick or Yoke?
I prefer a yoke...
-
Depends.
Fly-by-wire planes have stick, mechanically controlled planes have a yoke. But there's the "wheel yoke" thing, too. With rotation and depth controlling ailerons and elevators (respectively)... I don't know what to call that other than "controls". :lol:
-
Some time ago I read an article about that. I'll try to summarise what I remember.
The stick is more easy to use and more practical than a yoke, so it's used mainly on fighters and helicopters (even if now it is being used also on other type of planes, for example the A380 has a stick).
On the other hand, the yoke makes flight more accurate, so it's used mainly on civilian planes, especially general aviation ones (but also in this case, you can find sticks on some GA planes).
When I was little I read something about a Viper(I don't remember the G. name,only its translation)a piloted rocket launched like a V1 armed with small rockets.The fighter had to launch its rockets on American bombers,then it was useless and went down,losing most of its parts.Then the Germans would have re-used the other parts...
The German name is Bachem Ba-349 Natter, if it's what I think.
-
At an airshow in Michigan I saw a B-2 flyby nice and close three times.... and god was it sexy!!! On one of the passes i recorded it. its at the very end of my airshow video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1587620637588007941&q=kappawing&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1587620637588007941&q=kappawing&hl=en)
BTW who recognizes the music at the very beginning? :p
-
I had already seen your video when you published the link here some time ago... Cool! :yes:
Last year I made some videos at Italy's biggest air show, but they are quite bad, since I made them with the digital photocamera, not with a decent camera. There were many display team from all Europe... Red Arrows, Patrulla Aguila, Patrouille de France... You can name them! In particular, the Red Arrows were fantastic! They made some impressing crossing... Obviously there were many other planes. The Typhoon was amazing, but what impressed me was the C-27. Seeing such a large plane making loopings and tonneauxs...
-
BTW who recognizes the music at the very beginning? :p
I do.
Babylon 5: Into the Fire Promo CD, ending of "Battle Themes 4".
-
Su-47
(http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/su47.jpg)
YF 23
(http://www.flyinthesky.it/images/yf23/YF-23-003.jpg)
-
RL picks: For looks only, the F-14, and the old Valkyrie (didn't that evolve into the Concode?).
Fantasy picks: VF-1A, Getter1 plane mode, and that new thingy "Yukikaze".
-
B2-Spirit
(http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Appendix/Aircraft/Graphics/b2.gif)
F117 Stealth Fighter
(http://www.egyptdailynews.com/My%20Webs/edailypics/F117.jpg)
and the literally Bulletproof A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog"
(http://www.danshistory.com/a10_2.jpg)
-
OV-10 Bronco (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco.jpg)
Ah... I always liked twin tail aircraft. Just look at a P-38... that's beautiful!
If here in Italy flying licenses weren't so ****ing expensive, and if it weren't already out of production, I'd buy a Cessna 337 Skymaster. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster)
Cessna,Pipers(my father calls them paperotti )are used by millionaires and break the balls of whoever works in a Airport.
-
Suhiko (sp) Su-47 and A-10 thunderbolt. :nod:
I also used to like the Mirage 2000c or whatever it was.
-
Cessna and Pipers are used by millionaires and break the balls of whoever works in a Airport
This is part of the Italian hatred toward general aviation. The problem is that here there aren't enough small airports, so GA planes must use the bigger ones.
And the fact that GA planes are only for millionaires is another Italian general thought, since here only rich people own a plane, but only for the high taxes and for the very expensive licenses (now the costs are so high that many pilots prefer to register their airplane and make the license abroad).
The airplane itself costs like a SUV or an high class car like a Mercedes (170'000 $ circa for a Cessna 172), and much less than supercars like Ferrari.
-
But they break my father's balls!!!
there are people who need to travel because of their job/particular family situations and they find those millionaires who obstacle them with their requests!
-
Depends.
Fly-by-wire planes have stick, mechanically controlled planes have a yoke. But there's the "wheel yoke" thing, too. With rotation and depth controlling ailerons and elevators (respectively)... I don't know what to call that other than "controls". :lol:
That's not true. The plane I'm flying in for my flight training is a Diamond Da-20 (fun little aircraft, I suggest you try it if you get the chance), and it's a mechanically (control rods) operated aircraft with a stick.
(http://www.usfc-krems.com/bilder/da20_evolution.jpg)
Fun little sperm with wings :D
-
Ah, okay. Language barrier for the win.
In my mind, a "stick" was more like a joystick used in some recent fly-by-wire air planes , while I figured a "yoke" was that bigger thing protruding from the floor of the cockpit.
After reading your message, I found out about the difference, and indeed "yoke" refers to that controller type that has a "wheel" controlling ailerons and "depth" controlling the elevator, and "stick" is a common term for both fly-by-wire joysticks and mechanical "sticks".
So, the difference between a yoke and a stick is now cleared in my mind. That said, I would definitely prefer a stick over yoke any time.
-
I would use another airplane for training,like an F-22....
-
I would use another airplane for training,like an F-22....
I'd prefer an F-23, which is aestetichally MUCH better than the F-22. If only the guys at USAF chose the F-23 instead of the F-22... :(
-
I think both of them are rather fugly, really. I don't like how they look like low-poly models made of rectangles.
IMHO B-2 is the coolest stealth plane currently (known to be) in action, based on pure aesthetical values. :nod: Flying wings FTW.
-
I think that EVERY stealth plane is ugly. Just look at the F-35 or, even worse, the X-32/F-32! (Well, they are more "low observability" than "stealth", but...) Obviously, there are some exception: the B-2, the F-117 and the SR-71 (even if it's not properly stealth).
-
Well, in my view the F-117 has the same chunky "low-poly" effect as the F-22, but to even larger extent. It's not particularly pretty plane to my eyes.
And SR-71 didn't NEED to be stealthy, it was built to outrun any missiles or ammunition of the time. But yes, it was/is awesome looking plane. And there's something inspiring in a concept of a plane that leaks gasoline like a brocken bucket on runway, but heats up enough in flight that the hull plating expanses and the outer plating becames practically seamless... :nervous:
Concorde is/was also a very beautiful plane, but alas, it had to linger and disappear. :(
-
Well, this week we get to see all sorts of planes up close and personal:
http://fleetweek.us/fleetweek (http://fleetweek.us/fleetweek)
I'm a big enough plane junky to have replaced my Canon 350D with a 400D just for Thursday! :)
A couple photos from last year:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/BlueAngels/IMG_3930.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/BlueAngels/F16Climb2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/BlueAngels/Brietling.jpg)
-
:jaw: Cool photos, Admiral! :yes: Especially the photo of the Red Bull Air Race! You caught exactly the right moment!
Some times ago, I saw on an airplane magazine some photos of the Blue Angels. Wow! There was an image where the planes in the diamond formation were almost touching each other! Also, Fat Albert is another cool thing about the Blue Angels. I've never seen a C-130 climbing almost vertically...
And also, I found this on the link you posted:
USCGC STEADFAST (WMEC 623)
The United States Coast Guard Cutter STEADFAST (WMEC 623) has proudly served the people of the United States for over 30 years. Commissioned in 1968, STEADFAST was home ported in St. Petersburg, Florida for her first 24 years of service. In 1992, she was decommissioned for Major Maintenance Availability (MMA) to extend her service another 25 years. Following MMA in February 1994, STEADFAST was re-commissioned and home ported in Astoria, OR.
STEADFAST has an illustrious record. Since commissioning in 1968, STEADFAST has completed over 330 Search and Rescue cases, interdicted over 1.6 million pounds of marijuana and 27,700 pounds of cocaine, seized over 65 vessels, and stopped over 3500 undocumented migrants on the high seas from entering the United States. STEADFAST was the first, and is one of only two cutters awarded the gold marijuana leaf, symbolizing one million pounds of marijuana seized. Legend holds STEADFAST was named "El Tiburon Blanco" (Spanish for "The White Shark") by Colombian drug smugglers in the 1970's for being such a nemesis to their illegal drug operations. To this day the crew uses the symbol of "El Tiburon Blanco" as one of their logos to epitomize STEADFAST's aggressive law enforcement posture. STEADFAST is currently under the OPCON and ADCON of COMPACAREA. As a Coast Guard resource, we are deployed anywhere along the western seaboard of North and Central America.
Quite ironical, isn't it?
Well, in my view the F-117 has the same chunky "low-poly" effect as the F-22, but to even larger extent. It's not particularly pretty plane to my eyes.
But its shape is quite different from other stealth planes, since when it was designed there weren't enough information about radar waves' behaviour on curved surfaces. And there is also a "sentimental" reason: it's the first model I built, 8 years ago... Lastly, the F-117 became very famous for its surgical strikes during the Gulf War, making it a sort of legendary aircraft (also for its very secret origin).
SR-71 didn't NEED to be stealthy
Infact, its shape is not designed to make it stealth, but to make it fly at over Mach 3 at a ridiculously high altitude. The stealth effect is a secondary effect. The only "wanted" stealth feature is its paint, that is slightly radar-assorbent.
-
Fat Albert is impressive -- A C-130 flying _lower_ than Alcatraz!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/BlueAngels/AlcatrazBuzz.jpg)
The Blue Angels are amazing in how close they can come to one another:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/BlueAngels/HeadOn2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/BlueAngels/4Together2.jpg)
-
Fat Albert is impressive -- A C-130 flying _lower_ than Alcatraz!
Also this impressed me quite a lot: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6640270698366329887&q=fat+albert&hl=en
The Blue Angels are amazing in how close they can come to one another:
Right! That was ecactly what I meant! They are amazing!
-
I would use another airplane for training,like an F-22....
I'd prefer an F-23, which is aestetichally MUCH better than the F-22. If only the guys at USAF chose the F-23 instead of the F-22... :(
When I was little I remember that this event hit my heart...
I like the Blue Angels but our Frecce Tricolori(=tri-coloured arrows,should be) are a nice team!
I think that the F-22 and the YF-23 are well shaped.I prefer the second one though the first is evidently better.The B-2(I have a couple of B-2 models somewhere....)is the most expensive bomber ever built and quite fascinating.
Since I don't remember too much things about airplanes,I ask you some infos about an US airplane scrapped after a serious incident.It was much bigger than a fighter and I remember a Concorde-like design....
-
That would be the XB-70, probably one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made:
Link (http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html)
-
I don't have that cool pictures... :blah: I used to have a video taken from inside the mentioned glider, while we were doing loops and vertical turns. But I lost it when PartitionMagic... did something it wasn't supposed to do on my HD. :mad: I know, backups for the win and so forth...
:hammer:
:blah:
Anyway, this one I took while I was in the army and we were transported from an excercise back to our barracks area at Hamina... by ages old, cranky Mil Mi-8 transport helicopters. :)
(http://users.tkk.fi/~lmiettun/Kuvat/MI-8_HS-6_thumbnail.JPG) (http://users.tkk.fi/~lmiettun/Kuvat/PICT0948.JPG)
It was fun, although it lasted sadly little time.
-
The Valkyrie! It was the Valkyrie!
Thanks,Nelson.
-
our Frecce Tricolori (=tri-coloured arrows, should be) are a nice team!
Well, a year ago I saw an airshow (I've said that some posts ago, if I remember well) where there were a lot of European teams. Yes, the Frecce Tricolori is a good team, but I think the Red Arrows were much better.
*expecting to be exiliated from Italy*
Obvioulsy, Lidia Menapace (an Italian politician who wants to disband the team because it's "polluting, very expensive, an armed show and a symbol of maschilism") will always find my opposition.
-
*expecting to be exiliated from Italy*
Obvioulsy, Lidia Menapace (an Italian politician who wants to disband the team because it's "polluting, very expensive, an armed show and a symbol of maschilism") will always find my opposition.
Since I'm in your side,you couldn't be exiliated.
Myabe the Frecce Tricolori aren't so excellent due to the airplanes they use?
Lidia Menapace...I'll write what I think of her in Italian so you can't understand....
Pu****a di me**a,che ca**o ti parli?Ma va a fa****o invece di sparare simili mi******e!!!! :doubt:
She wants female pilots in the Frecce Tricolori=she was accidents? :D
-
I hate to say it but the Red Arrows are actually better than the Blue Angels... that said they're both excellent sets of pilots. The RA just seem to have the edge :)
-
Midnight Hawks (http://www.midnighthawks.fi/sivu/en/) FTW. They just happen to have only four planes to fly (plus one spare), and as the planes are borrowed from Kauhava Air Academy, they are in full operational conditional - means they have no smoke system, so their performances are by default less... dashing... than their counterparts from bigger countries with bigger resources.
Skill-wise, they are perhaps on the top of the world. Anecdote:
In 26.6.2006 (this summer), the Red Arrows and Midnight Hawks performed at the same location, Midnight Sun Airshow. During display practice, the Red Arrows pilots had possibility to fly on the back seats of Midnight Hawks.
Apparently they marvelled at how close to each other the Midnight Hawks flew... ;7
It's a shame the Finnish Air Force will soon decommission the BAe Systems Hawk Mk.51, but they are starting to age. :blah:
-
Maybe the Frecce Tricolori aren't so excellent due to the airplanes they use?
It's not for the airplane: the MB.339 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MB.339) is one of the best basic trainers in the world, much comparable to the Hawk. And it's the only jet trainer that can perform the lomcevak (as far as I know).
Obviously, its evolution, the M-346 (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak/) should perform much better. But the best thing would be a team composed of Typhoons... Well, I think that's quite impossible since THAT would be really expensive!
It's just a problem of maneuvers. For example, when Italy won the World Championships, the Frecce Tricolori made a giant heart in the sky when the team returned. Maybe seen on TV seems different, but that maneuver wasn't well performed (the 2 formations weren't synchronised).
When I saw the Red Arrows making it, it was perfect.
Herra, I've problems watching videos, but as soon as I resolve them I'll look for a Midnight Hawks video on the net.
So far, I've downloaded the diamond formation for use with FS2002
-
My favourite aircraft? The classic F-14, it looks amazing, and even better when it breaks the sound barrier: ;7
(http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/1668/7yx5.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/2530/8mg4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
-
That would be the XB-70, probably one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made:
Link (http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html)
And then Soviets freaked out and started to build MiG-25 and then the Americans freaked out and built F-15 and in the end everyone lost money for pretty much nothing. Although fighters are cool and Soviet gimmicks were even cooler.
Cold War. Serious Business. Stupid Mistakes.
-
Cold War. Serious Business. Stupid Mistakes.
The cold war brought us dozens of insane and friggin cool machines.
Caspian sean monster FTW.
(http://www.digitalskydive.com/pubimages/p73_1.jpg)
Not really a plane, but it still flies.
-
im supprised noone has mentioned this beast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225
-
Not really a plane, but it still flies.
Prefer the Lun myself. Smaller, cheaper, actually armed. And apparently in service, though only two of them or so.
-
No airplane thread is complete without the CF-105 Arrow.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/AvroArrow1.jpg)
The best interceptor fighter never to see service.
-
I thought that was the Spitfire or F-14
-
The Delta Dagger?Where is the Delta Dagger?
-
The Delta Dagger? Where is the Delta Dagger?
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-102_Delta_Dagger), along with its evolution, the F-106 Delta Dart. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-106_Delta_Dart)
-
Ah,Dart.
-
I thought that was the Spitfire or F-14
I hate to burst your bubble, but the F14 is more like an air-superiority fighter...
-
The end of the F-14 (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,114679,00.html)
-
whoa.......what's replacing it???
-
text inside <...> by me.
I thought that <greatest interceptor ever?> was the Spitfire or F-14
I hate to burst your bubble, but the F14 is more like an air-superiority fighter...
Spitfires and F-14 were both primarily air superiority fighters, but confusingly, the F-14 is also described as an interceptor in some contexts, and with good solid reasons, too. The main purpose of F-14 was being US Navy's number one air superiority fighter, everything else was extra.
If you want an example of an interceptor, Messerschmitt Bf-109 is quite good example from WW2 era. Of current fighter jets, most can be used in intercept roles, but F-14 was very well suited for the role because of its 200-km range AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, thus the dualistic classification as air superiority figher (because of excellent maneuverability) and interceptor (because of other attributes, mainly long-range air-to-air armament.
Practically, interceptor's definition requires interceptor to be able to swiftly engage targets on wide area. Naturally, speed used to be the single most essential feature in this role, but long-range guided missiles are nowadays just as important (or more important), and ability to carry a lot of them also means lot.
For example, F-14's effective area of fire was a 200-km radius, and its maximum speed was 2,485 km/h at high altitude.
F/A-18E/F, F-14's successor has corresponding specs of effective firing radius being 75 km (with standard AIM-120 AMRAAMs) and maximum speed of 1,814 km/h at high altitude.
F-22, a full-fledged air superiority fighter design, has an effective firing radius of 75 kilometres, or with AIM-120C-5 perhaps more than 110 km, still a lot less than F-14 with Phoenix missiles. Its maximum speed, however, is estimated 2575 km/h at high altitude (claim in Wikipedia based on test pilot's word, apparently, but naturally accurate specs are classified...); not that much more than that of F-14.
So, the F-22 flies about 100 km/h faster, but F-14 has 100 km more effective range of fire.
That makes the F-14 best interceptor of these at short notice, F-22 can very well fulfill the role as well... and F-18 will also get the job done well enough for most cases. Actually, for example F-15 would suit better for intercept role than F/A-18, but as said, all current fighters can and will be used on intercept missions as well as pure "dogfight" missions in case of conflict. And many countries are small enough (like Finland, having most important military targets on a relatively small area) that for example F-18 is more than sufficient for intercepting anything violating the airspace of the country.
...On the other hand, an airplane specifically designed for interceptor role, such as MiG-31, has effective firing radius of 175 km (with Vympel R-77M1) and speed of whopping 3000 km/h at high altitude, with combat range of 720 kilometres. I'm sure you can count the numbers together, in interceptor role this plane kicks some serious ass... on a short time notice. In longer run, newer planes will beat it because it runs out of fuel so fast.
-
whoa.......what's replacing it???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter
-
IMHO, the JSF won't fullfill his roles as well as the planes it replaces, since they are so different. It's madness to replace an F-14 and an A-10 with the same plane! How can a plane perform well both in long range intercept missions and CAS missions? Also, since its loadout must be carried in internal bays to make it more stealth (even if it's officially a "low observability" plane, not a "stealth" plane), it won't carry enough weapons to perform well in neither role.
-
its a shame that old yet really cool planes like the a-10 and f-14 are being phased out. but i guess its time to retire the old war dogs. an airframe doesnt exacly last forever and im sure there arent any factories currently set up to produce new planes of the same design. to re-establish production costs about the same as it does to set up production on a new, more modern design. still im not too impressed with the jsf. its being sold as an inexpensive aircraft but it still costs too damn much. those a-10s have some serious bang for your buck ar only 8 million each. seriously as close to a flying tank as you can get. it is an aircraft you just cant replace with some fast, stealthy, hi tech plane.
the f14 on the other hand, as good as it was, is wearing down to the point where its just not safe or effietient to fly anymore. the navy has plenty of other planes that can do its job just as well. its swing wing design is just suceptible to more structual wear than a fixed wing. its a nice plane, so dont mothball them all, at least put a couple on ebay :D
-
There is also another problem with the planes the F-35 will replace: as far as I know, in UK and in Italy it will replace the Tornado IDS. While in the USA its counterpart, the F-15E, will be replaced by a special designed variant of the F-22 (the FB-22 (http://www.air-attack.com/page/26/FB-22-Fighter-Bomber.html), but I'm not sure it will ever see light...) that has more or less the same capabilities of the airplane it replaces, UK and Italy will found themselves without a good long-range interdiction plane (apart from Typhoons armed with air-to-ground weapons).
at least put a couple on ebay :D
I had the same idea...
And regarding to the CF-105, IceFire wrote "the best interceptor to never see service", not the best interceptor ever, since of the CF-105 were only built a couple of prototypes...
-
As far as I know, the F-14s are initially replaced by F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in Navy use.
F-35A (conventional take-off and landing) will start replacing A-10's and F-16's starting (supposedly) from 2011.
F-35B (short take-off, vertical landing) will eventually start replacing NAvy Harriers and Hornets, starting from 2012.
And finally, F-35C will be used to replace all older F/A-18A/B/C/D models in US Navy use, so eventually the Super Hornets will continue in service along with F-35.
Anyway, here's an interesting weapon.
AIR-2A Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie), air-to-air nuclear missile with nominal 1.5 kt yield.
A live Genie was detonated only once, in Operation Plumbbob on 19 July 1957. It was fired by an F-89J over Yucca Flats Nuclear Test Site at an altitude of 4,500 m (15,000 ft). A group of USAF officers volunteered to stand underneath the blast to prove that the weapon was safe for use over populated areas. Whether this affected the health of the officers is unknown.
:nervous:
A predecessor to MX-64 Rockeye? :drevil:
-
its a shame that old yet really cool planes like the a-10 and f-14 are being phased out. but i guess its time to retire the old war dogs. an airframe doesnt exacly last forever and im sure there arent any factories currently set up to produce new planes of the same design. to re-establish production costs about the same as it does to set up production on a new, more modern design. still im not too impressed with the jsf. its being sold as an inexpensive aircraft but it still costs too damn much. those a-10s have some serious bang for your buck ar only 8 million each. seriously as close to a flying tank as you can get. it is an aircraft you just cant replace with some fast, stealthy, hi tech plane.
I know there are plans to replace A-10 with F-35, but every time Air Force tries to get rid of them the Army goes "hey hey hey give them to us", and then there will be a pissing match and finally A-10s continue to fly and grunts are happy. It's widely regarded as one of the most useful planes in US arsenal right now, and it's estimated retirement time is still quite far away (2028). That's a lot of time, and F-35s are expensive. A-10s are cheap.
the f14 on the other hand, as good as it was, is wearing down to the point where its just not safe or effietient to fly anymore. the navy has plenty of other planes that can do its job just as well. its swing wing design is just suceptible to more structual wear than a fixed wing. its a nice plane, so dont mothball them all, at least put a couple on ebay :D
Tomcat's gimmick was the combination of radar and Phoenix. However, right now there are no enemies who would be dumb enough to use bomber/missile oversaturation method against USN. Tomcat is now a Cold War beast, attempts to make it a strike platform were, iirc, not very satisfying.
-
The F-14s will be replaced by the F/A-18E Super Hornet (the F is a two seater variant of the E). I'm not sure if the JSF will be replacing both eventually, though.
-
Tomcat is now a Cold War beast
IMHO, also stealth planes are Cold War beasts: there is nobody against which stealth planes are really useful, nobody is armed well enough to pose a credible threat. And stealth planes are useless when AAA gets a lucky shot, like in Kosovo, when a F-117 was shot down. And since stealth planes cost a lot...
-
...but there ARE weapons that very well pose a credible threat to NON-stealth planes - for example, SA-2 SAM:s.
The whole concept of stealth is to avoid detection and hence retaliation... if the planes were non-stealth, they would be susceptible to very common air defense weapons.
And of course, as of yet there is really no defence against eyeball, mark one paired with flak gun. Speed and altitude helps, but in some missions lower altitude is required and in those situations, there's always a chance to get hit, no matter how stealthy your plane is.
-
...but there ARE weapons that very well pose a credible threat to NON-stealth planes - for example, SA-2 SAM:s.
The whole concept of stealth is to avoid detection and hence retaliation... if the planes were non-stealth, they would be susceptible to very common air defense weapons.
And of course, as of yet there is really no defence against eyeball, mark one paired with flak gun. Speed and altitude helps, but in some missions lower altitude is required and in those situations, there's always a chance to get hit, no matter how stealthy your plane is.
yep, thats the way they did it in ww2. no scanners on board, maybe somone would radio if they detected bogeys in your vacinity. if you were on the ground or on a ship its see plane, hear plane, shoot plane. i remember the bigginning of air amrerica. that guy fires one rifle round at the plane, and its enough to create a crash landing.
I know there are plans to replace A-10 with F-35, but every time Air Force tries to get rid of them the Army goes "hey hey hey give them to us", and then there will be a pissing match and finally A-10s continue to fly and grunts are happy. It's widely regarded as one of the most useful planes in US arsenal right now, and it's estimated retirement time is still quite far away (2028). That's a lot of time, and F-35s are expensive. A-10s are cheap.
yea they better hold onto em. i have a feeling it would be the perfect test platform for a fighter based laser platform as its gun takes up the required space. as much as i hate the idea of replacing a perfectly good monster of a gatling gun with a laser :D
-
The problem with replacing the Tomcat is that the Hornet is not really up to the same standards. The F/A-18C was extremely short-ranged; the D and E models have gotten better but they still aren't great.
My personal opinion is that they should have sent the Tomcat and the Intruder back to the factory floor for remanufacturing rather then sending them to the boneyard. They had the range to make them ideal for carrier ops and better payload. The Hornet was an excellent replacement for the A-7 and gave US carriers greater multirole capablity, but replacing the A-6 and F-14 with Hornets was less than brilliant.
In regards to the strike-adapted Tomcat, the Tomcat 21 project, it was not that it was a poor strike aircraft. It has an excellent external load, it's fast, and it's got those nifty swing wings. The only thing it would have needed to match or exceed the Tornado would have been terrain-following gear. Congress axed the project citing funding concerns (then turned around and shelled out god-knows-how-much for the JSF while leaving the USN's fighter squadrons holding the bag).
-
Tomcat is now a Cold War beast
IMHO, also stealth planes are Cold War beasts: there is nobody against which stealth planes are really useful, nobody is armed well enough to pose a credible threat. And stealth planes are useless when AAA gets a lucky shot, like in Kosovo, when a F-117 was shot down. And since stealth planes cost a lot...
That F-117 was shot down because people got overconfident and followed the same flight pattern for three nights. Everyone with a calculator and explosives can then shoot one down.
Stealth assets have been used in Iraq, where they were used to suppress and defeat high priority AA assets. Such missions are not unlikely in the near future and stealth minimizes - but does not remove - casualties. But I admit that B-2 is a Cold War relic - strategic bombing is in all-time low right now. Smaller, more mobile stealth assets, such as F/A-22, F-35 and UAVs/UCAVs are, however, quite useful if one happens to meet even a third-world country with old Strelas and Goas.
However, Stealth is kinda paradoxic: it's the result of decades of hard work and stealth platforms are expensive and cutting edge technology. They are not invisible, but low-visibility platforms. Except when your opponent has multistatic radars, like North Korea. But they are huge and inaccurate.
-
Don't worry,we'll see the Tomcat is some merc forces.
-
The problem with replacing the Tomcat is that the Hornet is not really up to the same standards. The F/A-18C was extremely short-ranged; the D and E models have gotten better but they still aren't great.
My personal opinion is that they should have sent the Tomcat and the Intruder back to the factory floor for remanufacturing rather then sending them to the boneyard. They had the range to make them ideal for carrier ops and better payload. The Hornet was an excellent replacement for the A-7 and gave US carriers greater multirole capablity, but replacing the A-6 and F-14 with Hornets was less than brilliant.
F/A-18E Super Hornet is essentially new aircraft, it's superficially similar and name was given to get funding from Congress though :confused: It has over two times the combat range of C/D and carries a lot more weapons and fuel. It has longer combat range than Tomcat! Hornet's slower, though, but full burn uses fuel.
In regards to the strike-adapted Tomcat, the Tomcat 21 project, it was not that it was a poor strike aircraft. It has an excellent external load, it's fast, and it's got those nifty swing wings. The only thing it would have needed to match or exceed the Tornado would have been terrain-following gear. Congress axed the project citing funding concerns (then turned around and shelled out god-knows-how-much for the JSF while leaving the USN's fighter squadrons holding the bag).
Navy supported F/A-18E though.
There are four dimensions on every military aircraft: lenght, height, width and politics.
-
They started a day early this year. I can't say its easy to get decent pics in the rain. Props have a certain appeal that jets somehow don't match....
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/2006BlueAngels/Test/2006_Test3.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/2006BlueAngels/Test/2006_Test7.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/2006BlueAngels/Test/2006_Test8.jpg)
-
The problem with the Tomcat was that it required a lot (and I mean a lot) of maintenance and spare parts from what I hear, and back in 1992 or something, Dick Cheney ordered all factories/equipment producing those to be shut down in preperation for the Tomcat retirement.
Quite simply, I think the Tomcat just got too expensive to operate for a mission that really didn't exist anymore - aerial intercept/superiority. The Super Bug can drop bombs better than the Bombcat ever could/can, and it can dogfight/intercept at least half as well. The Navy doesn't need aircraft to fight the Russians anymore, it needs aircraft to fight insurgencies.
EDIT: Nelson, great pics btw :)
-
F/A-18E Super Hornet is essentially new aircraft, it's superficially similar and name was given to get funding from Congress though :confused: It has over two times the combat range of C/D and carries a lot more weapons and fuel. It has longer combat range than Tomcat! Hornet's slower, though, but full burn uses fuel.
The F/A-18C's range with a standard combat load of external stores, assuming it has to fly back to where it launched from, is about 275 nautical miles. The F/A-18D's varies depending on the type of mission; most missile-based stores like SEAD, ASuW, or standard CAP loadouts give 370nm round-trip range, close-support loadouts heavy on the bombs drop it to 250nm. The F/A-18E's stretched fuselage for expanded fuel storage and improved engines give it slightly better radius, which also varies heavily based on stores it's loaded with but hovers around 400nm (which is less than twice of the C/D). The F/A-18F's combat radius is about 370nm.
For comparison, the ranges of the Tomcat the F/A-18E is replacing: Standard intercept loadout for an F-14B gives it a round-trip range of about 475nm; escort loadout gives changes it to be about 525nm. The F-14D's range with standard interception loadout is 525nm; the range with an escort loadout is 700nm. As you can see, the F/A-18E doesn't reach as far as the F-14.
The A-6E's ranges, for comparison to F/A-18F that replaced it: Bomb-based loads give it 600nm round-trip range, missile-based like SEAD and ASuW or precision weapons tend to be about 700nm.
Much as we don't like to admit it, the Backfires are still out there. China is reportedly interested in buying some; so are India and Iran. It's also known that Egypt, Iran, Libya, and China have purchased Badgers (and have the missiles to arm them), which would have been the secondary targets of the Tomcat. In some cases the Hornet's range isn't even far enough to intercept a Badger before it launches missiles. Whatever the decisions regarding the Tomcat, whatever the reasons for retiring it, was taken out of service before the threat it was designed to defeat was.
-
F/A-18E Super Hornet is essentially new aircraft, it's superficially similar and name was given to get funding from Congress though :confused: It has over two times the combat range of C/D and carries a lot more weapons and fuel. It has longer combat range than Tomcat! Hornet's slower, though, but full burn uses fuel.
The F/A-18C's range with a standard combat load of external stores, assuming it has to fly back to where it launched from, is about 275 nautical miles. The F/A-18D's varies depending on the type of mission; most missile-based stores like SEAD, ASuW, or standard CAP loadouts give 370nm round-trip range, close-support loadouts heavy on the bombs drop it to 250nm. The F/A-18E's stretched fuselage for expanded fuel storage and improved engines give it slightly better radius, which also varies heavily based on stores it's loaded with but hovers around 400nm (which is less than twice of the C/D). The F/A-18F's combat radius is about 370nm.
For comparison, the ranges of the Tomcat the F/A-18E is replacing: Standard intercept loadout for an F-14B gives it a round-trip range of about 475nm; escort loadout gives changes it to be about 525nm. The F-14D's range with standard interception loadout is 525nm; the range with an escort loadout is 700nm. As you can see, the F/A-18E doesn't reach as far as the F-14.
The A-6E's ranges, for comparison to F/A-18F that replaced it: Bomb-based loads give it 600nm round-trip range, missile-based like SEAD and ASuW or precision weapons tend to be about 700nm.
Much as we don't like to admit it, the Backfires are still out there. China is reportedly interested in buying some; so are India and Iran. It's also known that Egypt, Iran, Libya, and China have purchased Badgers (and have the missiles to arm them), which would have been the secondary targets of the Tomcat. In some cases the Hornet's range isn't even far enough to intercept a Badger before it launches missiles. Whatever the decisions regarding the Tomcat, whatever the reasons for retiring it, was taken out of service before the threat it was designed to defeat was.
Our sources are different and yours are propably better, I only used wiki. But of course Tomcat was far from the only platform designed to counter that very specific attack - they have Aegis systems for that and actually the entire CVBG concept is based on protecting the valuable carrier from missile and torpedo attacks.
You need a lot of missiles to get through those defences. And no, SUNBURN! does not constitute as answer and if someone asks something about it then I'll get angry and copy-paste the patent naval officer's reply.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/2006BlueAngels/Test/Close.jpg)
-
:jaw:
Do you know when will be next Blue Angels' tour in Europe? :D