Jump to content

Aircraft Vs Thread 5


Recommended Posts

Chuck Yeager liked the F-20. However, I've read that one problem is that it wouldn't have been as capable of the same upgrades as the F-16, as the airframe would have run out of space for toys sooner. How true that is, I'm not sure...

I'm sure it would've been possible to upgrade the F-20 as needed if it had entered service. But the F-20 was never meant for front-line USAF or USN service anyways. It's sales targets were USAF/USN adversary squadrons and foreign air forces that wanted an upgrade/replacement for their F-5E Tigers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, was just reminded of something that I myself always forget. For all Sukhois:

It's Su. As in, Sue, or Soo. Not Ess-You.

MiG is "mig"---not "emm aye gee". Same for Su.

F-15 is "eff fif-teen", but Su-27 is properly "sue twenty-seven".

Of course, what does that mean for An-72 and Tu-95?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-16ADF only exists as a counter to the F-20. Inferior in every aspect---yet they picked it anyways.

I suspect the supply chain factor might also have played a part; why introduce a totally new type (even if superior) when you're already building something that can do the job effectively? (also, probably politics... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when you think of how small and sleek the basic F-5 frame is, combined with more power than the best of the F-8s, combined with aerodynamic tweaks from the YF-17 team...

I remember when I was a kid (early 80s). There was this defence mag I was reading and they had an advert from Northrup on the F-20 (this was when they were trying to market it to the RSAF, I am from Singapore) and most of the advert space was a graph like thingy showing how the F-20 is fastest in the world to 60000ft or something like that. (cant remember the exact stats)

One thing about the F-16 which definitely gives it an advantage over the F-20 is the slightly higher mounted wing and landing gear arrangement. Having to stick with the basic F-5E/G roots, the F-20 didn't have the ability to carry much bulky ordnance like fat bombs for the air-to-ground role. I think even sticking an M-61 in the F-20 to replace the twin M39s would be quite a project. Not sure if the airframe can take engines bigger than a F-404 as well, so it may not be able to accept the current 14-15KN class engines being stuffed into the F-16.

Edited by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-20 was not intended as a heavy bomber, it is the fastest-scrambling interceptor ever. Even the F-22 could not beat it in the first 5 (or even 10) minutes. (If Ace Combat scenarios were real, every air force would be scrambling over themselves to get some)

Also, the F-20 can still carry most any typical bomb, and Mavericks for precision strikes. Just not a whole bunch of them. The "lowest-hanging" arrangement on an F-16 (or just about anything) is a triple-rail Maverick. Most weapons don't need that much clearance. And with even the A-10 not usually carrying Mavericks that way, it's kinda pointless.

As for engines---the F414 would fit. 1.4:1 combat ratio with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we're just going to have to put the F-20 squadrons in our dream Air Force along with the wing of F-23s and the XB-70 bomber fleet... :)

Don't forget the F12B to go intercept the incoming hordes of Backfires and Blackjacks.

Someone is probably going to come along and rant about the Tomcat-21 soon.

Edited by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan makes Ace Combat. They know Typhoons look better in black than F-22s. :lol:

If you're going to reference Ace Combat, then I think Japan wants their fighters to look more like this. :lol:

DLC03_F-22A-IM_HARUKA.jpg

hs48p166.JPG

Edited by Vifam7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a life-long video game player I sort of like the idea of unmanned warfare in general. In fact, I think all future wars should be fought via proxy RC war machines... and after the fighting is done, we can all go the the UN.org's PVP forum and flame each other out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who are even better at landing gear identificatio than I say the wheels look like an F-14's. (the idea is that they used as many existing parts as possible to get it up and running quickly, much like the YF-23 and X-29)

Also, 787 first flight moved up. Keeps changing, 14-18-22-15. But sometime around 2 weeks from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you guys have heard about the new UAV spotted in Afghanistan? The landing gear looks pretty heavy duty - carrier based? Know anything about it, David?

http://gizmodo.com/5419363/usaf-confirms-n...t-stealth-plane

I see that it's confirmed to be a Lockheed Martin design. Without a doubt it's an operational descendant of Lockheed's Polecat from a few years ago.

In a totally unrelated matter, back in late July/early August I was interviewed for a position at Offutt AFB involving the RC-135 flight simulators. In the end I didn't get the job, but I think I came close. Still looking for a job after 8 months of unemployment. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...