Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 with the topics of the FB22 and rebirth of the black widow I thought it was time to bring this thread back up!! So more new topics!! FB-22 vs YF-23(regional bomber version) I know for sure the Fb-22 would be uglier than the YF-23. I mean come on its like an arrowhead. The YF-23 ultimately may still have the biggest weapons load. And sensors and crap. Hell if they navy wants(which presumably they know they want) a long range stealth fighter than this can be had if needed, after all northroip gruymman is the most experienced in terms of naval aviation. The YF-23 was stealthier than the 22 to begin with and its full limits were never explored, so if they do bring this back it should be interesting. The FB-22 for all we know is a paper airplane. Not one even built yet and who knows it might not be as stealthy as the regular FB-22. I know the airforce wanted it to justify buying more raptors and not cancelling the 22 program altogether. And hell it requires numerous mods whereas the YF-23 can jsut be restored within a month and outfitted with new displays as well as weapons systems. This wouild not take long at all compared to constructing an all new variant with various new toolings. This should be interesting and for more entertaining than the JSF demval. F-5F Tiger II vs Iranian dual vertical stabilizer F-5 hybrid. THe F-5F is venerable. But Iran has recently unveiled an F-5E with 2 vert stabs. Looks interesting but could it be better? Could it be a russian retrofit with glass cockpit? WHo the hell knows but nonetheless it seems kind of cool. A-4S vs A-4F. A-4S not only looks awesome but has a pwoerful engine. mde for A2A role. How does the skyhawk II fare against it? F-2 (FSX) vs F-16 block 60. A2a which is the better? COuld tghe F-2 even dogfight well? Navalized YF-23 vs F/A-18F pretend the YF-23 has a improvized APG-71 and all the wazzoo like phenix missles. What of stirke capability? Would it fare well or potentially kill the super buig's capability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Navalized YF-23 vs F/A-18F pretend the YF-23 has a improvized APG-71 and all the wazzoo like phenix missles. What of stirke capability? Would it fare well or potentially kill the super buig's capability? That's not fair, if you're going to pretend the YF-23 has all that extra crap, you should do the same for the Hornet. Otehrwise you're biasing your argument for the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Author Share Posted July 19, 2004 Navalized YF-23 vs F/A-18F pretend the YF-23 has a improvized APG-71 and all the wazzoo like phenix missles. What of stirke capability? Would it fare well or potentially kill the super buig's capability? That's not fair, if you're going to pretend the YF-23 has all that extra crap, you should do the same for the Hornet. Otehrwise you're biasing your argument for the beginning. howqs it not fAir? super bug is in prpduction, YF=23 never had weazpon systems on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Even if the YF-23 was planned to have an APG-71, no way it was planned to have Pheonix missiles, it was designed for the Air Force, at least pretend you're not completly biased agaisnt the F-18 first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Author Share Posted July 19, 2004 heh its OBVIOUS im biased against the hornet. BUt I mean come on now that northrop grumman are partners, who the hell knows maybe the NAvy will want the YF23. The YF-17 was air force also but the navy wanted it and it turned into the F-18. So stuff like this could happen. THe YF-23 has many things going for it one of them being worked on by norethrop grumman, grumman has the most experience making naval aircraft while northrop just makes good planes in general. There is nothing saying the black widow CANT be fitted or modded to use the phoenix. I mean hell the YF17 wasnt planned to be an all out dual role naval strike aircraft either, it was planned for close in day dopgfighting, and look what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 The only reason why the F-18 exists today is because the Navy didn't want to share a fighter with the Airforce and killed the navaltilzed version of the F-16. I could go on about the procurement history of the F/A-18, but maybe another time. A lot of assumptions being thrown around here (like it was Cheney who pushed the hornet for everything, when it was really the Navy who pushed the idea). BUt I don't have time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Author Share Posted July 19, 2004 The only reason why the F-18 exists today is because the Navy didn't want to share a fighter with the Airforce and killed the navaltilzed version of the F-16. I could go on about the procurement history of the F/A-18, but maybe another time. A lot of assumptions being thrown around here (like it was Cheney who pushed the hornet for everything, when it was really the Navy who pushed the idea). BUt I don't have time now. not so much cheney pushing, more like cheney putting the nail in the coffin for the F-14 Super Tomcat 21 program in favor of the F/A-18E/F super bug. We all know about the cost overruns and such and how cheney was down with teh lighjtweight fighter community in congress and the "hornet mafia". It is more like the navy din't want the F/A-18F but had no other choice since Cheney cancelled tbhe F-14 ST21/D program and a year earlier or so the A-6F was cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) But the lightweigh fighter mafia disowned the F/A-18, because it did the things they never wanted. The LFMs never wanted the sparrow on the F-18, which necessitated a larger radar dish which slowed down the fighter. They also never inteneded it to be a multi role fighter, because it was designed to be a pure dogfighter. That was a navy change. The navy was worried in the early 1990s that with the end of the cold war, they would not get a replacement for the F-14, or the A-6. The Cancellation of the A-12 and Navy ATF, it did not believe it would get a new fighter for quite some time, so it pushed hard for the super hornet. IT was the Navy's initiative to build the F/A18E not the Office of Secretary of Defence. The Navy insisted on the F/A-18E by purposely subverting the procurement process, by classifying it as a modification of a new fighter, not by redesignating it the F/A-19 since in reality the 18E is a very different fighter than its predeccesor. The Navy snubbed Congress when it demanded a Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis, on the new fighter pointing out that it was only a modification. If the Navy was really interested in Getting the super tomcat over the super hornet they would have immediately complied with a COEA request, and offered the tomcat as a choice . Rather the Navy chose to lie and say that there was no real alternatives out there for the F/A-18E so we don't need a COEA at all. really if the Navy really wanted to get the Super Tomcat they could have done so. They excel at geting what they want. They got the F-18 over the F-16, they even got the F-14 over the F-111 in the first place. I'm not letting the Office of Secretary of Defence off the hook either. It was negligent because it did not provide proper oversight and it did support the Super hornet, but it was not the prime drivers of the series of events that did occur, that was all the navy's doing. Edited July 19, 2004 by Noyhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Author Share Posted July 19, 2004 oh ok. Didnt know as much. Though the nnavy DID push for the superbug there aer MANY officers and higherups displeased with that decision. Like me, their whole mentality is capability over everything else not maintanibility and trade offs. Noneteless I came up with a new debate. FB-22 vs F-15E FIGHT ON! then round 2 YF-23 regional bomber vs F-15E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 But the lightweigh fighter mafia disowned the F/A-18, because it did the things they never wanted. The LFMs never wanted the sparrow on the F-18, which necessitated a larger radar dish which slowed down the fighter. They also never inteneded it to be a multi role fighter, because it was designed to be a pure dogfighter. That was a navy change. The original idea for the F/A-18 was for there to be an A-18 to replace the A-7 and F-4 in the bombing role, with a look to the future and replacing the A-6. Another Fighter was supposed to be th F-18, which would support the F-14 and and replace the F-4's in the Air-to-Air role. P.S.- Noyhauser, I'm not disagrreing with you, I'm just supplementing your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Will the FB-22/ YF-23 be two seaters, becuase that makes a fifference in my opinion. Low level pentration strikes, need to have a crew of at least two. I also think a tandem cockpit, like the A-6 or F-111, is better for crew coordination in the bombing role, but in the fighter role a cockpit along the lines of the F-15E or F-14 is better. Also what's the mission? Fight/Sneak into a target and then bomb the hell out of it or more of a high altitude precision strike misison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) Coota0, you might look at the document links I posted in the YF-23 revival thread. I think this is the same link as one of them--it's a very good rundown of the pros and cons: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf Basically, the Air Force (and James Roche, Secretary of the Air Force) are saying it would be used to strike time-critical targets in a heavily-defended environment. One example is enemy leadership whose position may be known for a brief period. Another is mobile weapons. However, the report points out that a fast, stealthy, medium-range bomber isn't necessarily the best answer to this need. Shin--going back to some of the things that I've said before about the Tomcat vs. Superbug history, it's apparent that the Navy wanted something to replace the A-12 program. The "F-14 community" might have had a chance at that point to push the Tomcat as the answer, but they missed the boat and only got into bombing after the Super Hornet decision had already been made. In effect, the Navy was looking for a strategy get to a new tactical aircraft, and they realized they needed to emphasize bombing; the Tomcat folks weren't interested, so the Navy put all it's weight behind the Super Hornet. Edited July 19, 2004 by ewilen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 Ewilen, that is debatable, the navy as a whole didn't wnat the superbug replacing the tomcat. SOme of the people making the decisions were not even airmen! submariners! Most of the tomcat fighter community and even some higher ups were against it and even till this day some of them are. So while those in a position of power higher up may have wanted it, there were many who did not. This is not to say that what you and noyhauser said is not true, just saying it wasn't 100% suppported by the fighter community. lso something I always wondered;/ F-15E vs F-111/FB which is better for strike? We all know the eagle can haul ass A2A and the E is dual role, BUT in strike how does it fair against the aardvark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 If you want BIG laser-guided bombs, F-111 rules all. The absolute highest-priority targets in Desert Storm went to F-111's. Also I don't think the F-15 can carry the largest Paveways. Even F-111's had to carry them outboard for sheer clearance reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Ewilen, that is debatable, the navy as a whole didn't wnat the superbug replacing the tomcat. Just a whole bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 Ewilen, that is debatable, the navy as a whole didn't wnat the superbug replacing the tomcat. Just a whole bunch. pretty much dude, pretty much. David, I guess that clears things up on whos the better striker. Do you think a YF-23 dual role strike fighter could outdo the F-111B? It's got the speed and big ass wings.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Well, the late-model F-111's like in Desert Storm are still damn fast at all altitudes (they WILL outrun F-14's and can match the F-15) and very agile for a bomber. No matter how much it may have sucked as a fighter, it is still the F-14's immediate predecessor, and as such is as agile as a plane that big can be. And it has swing-wings, so it performs better than sheer wing/body size would indicate. The F-111 is a very good plane, just absolutely not a good carrier plane nor can it be the F-14 or F-15. The main argument for F-15 and F-23 over the F-111 is self-defense, not really performance. AFAIK quite a few F-15E pilots are ex-F-111 pilots. The F-15E is a much rougher ride and doesn't have the payload/range of the F-111, but they sure do like the fact that they can defend themselves with the best of them with the newer plane. Though the F-111's best defense has always been raw speed, and it outran MiG-29's all the time in Desert Storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 hey thats cool! DAve what do you think they will do to the YF-23?How do you think they will mod it? Will it still remain a combat capable interceptor/dogfighter? God I hope they test this thing.....its time to see what it can finally do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 (edited) Well, the first thing they were going to do for the original was to stretch the forward fuselage for a Sidewinder bay in front of the AMRAAM bay. Would also make it sleeker/faster. Don't know if they'd still do that, nowadays AMRAAM is considered a self-defense weapon too, as it's better for a bomber to snipe from afar rather than dogfight! But a bigger fuselage would allow more bombs/fuel of course. Back end: it was always too big due to thrust-reverser removal, that'd be made smaller. Would probably keep original design/shape, as it was very stealthy, both RCS and IR. Maybe use all that space for massive chaff/flare capacity. Hmmn, internal gun. THAT's debatable. (of course, a large part of it is "will the FB-23 eventually be redesigned 'back' to the F-23A?") Might be put in for no other reason than CAS capability. Even as it was, it should have been as agile as the F-16 but with better climbing and sustained turns due to raw power and wing size. It'd take a lot to take it "down" substantially. Edited July 20, 2004 by David Hingtgen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 Well, the first thing they were going to do for the original was to stretch the forward fuselage for a Sidewinder bay in front of the AMRAAM bay. Would also make it sleeker/faster. Don't know if they'd still do that, nowadays AMRAAM is considered a self-defense weapon too, as it's better for a bomber to snipe from afar rather than dogfight! But a bigger fuselage would allow more bombs/fuel of course. Back end: it was always too big due to thrust-reverser removal, that'd be made smaller. Would probably keep original design/shape, as it was very stealthy, both RCS and IR. Maybe use all that space for massive chaff/flare capacity. Hmmn, internal gun. THAT's debatable. (of course, a large part of it is "will the FB-23 eventually be redesigned 'back' to the F-23A?") Might be put in for no other reason than CAS capability. Even as it was, it should have been as agile as the F-16 but with better climbing and sustained turns due to raw power and wing size. It'd take a lot to take it "down" substantially. That very prospect means this plane will look more asskick then the FB-22 and makes me drool at the notion of it coming out~~~!!!! Drool....naval stealth long range striker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 Hey guys. It dawned on me that I came upw ith more debates stemming from reading a bunch of google debates. 1-F/A-18F vs A-6E/F Intruder II We all know that even ithough Intruder II has sidewinders and legacy hornet engines, it' s still can't outfight many fighters nor outmanuever A-4's, case in point, in terms of escort or A2A there is NO comparison between super bug and supertruder. However we should compare the 2 in the striker role...since the SUper bug is replacing the A-6. SO which is the better one?Range, payload, targeting, accuracy,ideal bomber, etc etc. Next up 2-F/A-18F vs F-15E. Made by the same company. Both dual role. Which is the better one? Eagle has more power but supposedly hornet's got more alpha. Could the hornet out fly the eagle in A2A? WHo is the better striker? This stems from someone saying the hornet is only 2nd to the eagle. 3-A-4 Manuverability vs F-14 manueverability Just watched topgun. F-14 ius big. A-4 is small. F-14 is dedicated fighter with lots more power. However which is truly more nimble? 4-F-22 vs F-18F. A2A . Does the super bug have anything that the raptor would want or envy? OR could the raptor whupp its ass without any problems close in? Both have good alpha low speed but which is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronocidal Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 (edited) Hmmm... You know, as much as I'd love to see the YF-23 made into a replacement for the Tomcat, something about that deal makes me think it'd get fugly-fied in the process, and ruin the pristine view of it I have... same for the bomber variant. There's a part of me that just wants it to remain a legend, rather than end up as another disaster of naval modification like the YF-17. If they do make a bomber out of it, I'll be very happy that Northrop finally is getting some business, but I hope they don't change the design too much.. there's only so much you can do to a design like that before ruining it. You know what I'd really like to see? The return of a dedicated interceptor for the Air Force. The last one I know of was the F-106...beautiful plane... all it did was intercept stuff. No worries about attacking ground targets, it had a dedicated air-to-air radar, and that was all it needed. Yeah, the F-22 will be good at air-to-air intercept.. but not as good as a dedicated interceptor. See, my dream would be to see the YF-23 re-introduced as a strict dogfighter/interceptor. Again, emphasis on dream. But imagine if it could be adapted into a next generation quick response fighter. With it's speed, it could be ideal for the intercept role. Not gonna happen, of course, but it's fun to dream. Edited July 22, 2004 by Chronocidal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 Hmmm... You know, as much as I'd love to see the YF-23 made into a replacement for the Tomcat, something about that deal makes me think it'd get fugly-fied in the process, and ruin the pristine view of it I have... same for the bomber variant. There's a part of me that just wants it to remain a legend, rather than end up as another disaster of naval modification like the YF-17. If they do make a bomber out of it, I'll be very happy that Northrop finally is getting some business, but I hope they don't change the design too much.. there's only so much you can do to a design like that before ruining it. You know what I'd really like to see? The return of a dedicated interceptor for the Air Force. The last one I know of was the F-106...beautiful plane... all it did was intercept stuff. No worries about attacking ground targets, it had a dedicated air-to-air radar, and that was all it needed. Yeah, the F-22 will be good at air-to-air intercept.. but not as good as a dedicated interceptor. See, my dream would be to see the YF-23 re-introduced as a strict dogfighter/interceptor. Again, emphasis on dream. But imagine if it could be adapted into a next generation quick response fighter. With it's speed, it could be ideal for the intercept role. Not gonna happen, of course, but it's fun to dream. eh ya know alot of people say the YF-23 was actually faster and stealtheir than the F-22........ so yea if its made into regional bomber I DOUBT they would retrofit it with delta wings, along with the sidewinder bay extension david brought up, it would be more faster....so yea I don't think it needs delta wings. And the navy would LOVE the big ass wing over a delta so no mods there. Also., THe reason the YF-17 was ruined was because of MCDONNAL DOUGLASS. As far as I know on the YF-23 they just did the avionics. So yea airframe is northrop grumman...northrop kicking ass with airframes, and grumman OWNING with the MOST naval air experience. SO yes indeed the YF-23, to me would stil retain A2A role. After all it was made to do that. And I imagine and F-15E replacement MUST be dual role since the strike is duial role. SO yea....it COULD intercept mighty fast and dogfight the remaining planes and come out on top. what we would have is a regional bombing dogfighting ASS kicker. And if possioble, the first long range multirol naval stealth fighter. JSF range is not as long as YF-23 on another note. Diecastwarmachines.com posted pictures of dragon warbirds 1/72 F-15C/D and F/A-18F VF-2 bounty hunters!! very awesome!~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Also., THe reason the YF-17 was ruined was because of MCDONNAL DOUGLASS. As far as I know on the YF-23 they just did the avionics. So yea airframe is northrop grumman...northrop kicking ass with airframes, and grumman OWNING with the MOST naval air experience. NO it wasn't. Again It was the navy tacking on usless stuff like the Sparrow, and an Air To ground role to its statement of requirements that was never originally envisioned in the Light weight fighter project. These things were actually purposely avoided because they would increase the weight and detract on the capability. In Procurement management lingo we call that "Gold plating". The original YF-17 was designed to be a pure dogfighter incorporating the lessons of Vietnam. Also, there was some question about the ability for the navy to purchase complete wings of F-14As which were deemed to be less than satisfactory overall at the time. Also the F-14 was not designed as a dogfighter, it was designed purposely as a Fleet Defender, a role that had developed from the 1940s and defence against Kamikazes. It was expected to use its heavy radar and Pheonix missiles to take down a soviet cruise missile/bomber threat. The Lightweight fighter mafia pointed out that the Fleet Defender role did not make for a good fighter aircraft as what occurred over Vietnam, where IFFs often failed and Blue on Blue situations occurred. The Original YF-17 was designed to be a purpose built dogfighter that would not have the sparrows and the larger radar that had to be encorporated. The addition of the crud that the Navy wanted ruined the design. Macdonald douglas is a contractor, they had to comply. Morever, the YF-17 lost for a reason. It was judged to be the loser against the YF-16 in a competition that was fairly impartial. What the Navy did was then reject the YF-16 on trumped up technical grounds (they claimed it didn't have enough landing clearance, even though the F-14 had even poorer specs and that two engines was needed, when they had the A-4 and the A-7 kicking around). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Regardless of what its role was, the F-14 was and is a better dogfighter than the F-4 which was the Navy's best fighter at the time. At gun range, the F-14 will easily take down even a slatted F-4 via sheer manuevers. If a new plane can out-dogfight the then current best dogfighter, it's a good dogfighter, even if it's a "Fleet Defense" plane officially. Which makes me wonder: F-8 vs F-14 in a close-range fight. Both are better than the F-4. F-8 is the F-8 and is smaller, but the F-14 has so much more power and a better power ratio. As for YF-17: The F-18L should still have existed, but MDC killed it. Wouldn't be as good as the F-17 for intercepting, but sure would beat the F/A-18A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 At the time the F-14 was seen as sluggish and compltely not Don't quote me on this because Im not at the office, but in tiral mock dogfights f-86s beat it ( think, or some other similarly very early jet fighter). To many it was seen as more of the same hubris that had brought interceptors instead of fighters into the Navy's home. Also , The Navy was on a tight string at that time, and Manufacturors aren't some entity that just magically creates planes without support. They only build when a statement of requirements is issued by the government, which contain Milspecs or tightly definded needs that manufacturer must follow. The Light weight fighter mafia was insensed when the Navy made completely different specifications for the F-18 , from the original Light weight fighter project. What would MDC do? They can't break milspecs otherwise they would lose the contract, and building a F-18 L would just burn a larger hole in their pocket. . I know you have some deep distate for MDC because of the Tomcat but its not their fault. Milspecs have been largely abandoned after I think it was William PErry made special justification needed for using Milspecs, a reversal from when when previously not to use milspecs needed special aproval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Actually, I love MDC, my fave plane builder. I'm just not fond of one particular product when it's replacing another much-beloved plane. (I actually like regular Hornets, it's the SUPER Hornet I'm not too fond of) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 hmm NOyhauser dude where do you work? IF your office has a lot of aircraft info perhaps you could shed light on a lot of aircraft that we don't know too much about!! LIke the super crusader, phantom w/canards, etc. I am not sure about teh F-86 taking the tomcat on. Sure it might be more nimble....but the power of thje F-14 would certainly give it the advantage in the vertical.. Turning match however......... well in aerowings II I was able to outmanuver them in a tomcat but then again its just a console sim. F-8 vs F-14.....hmmm.......operational SA goes to F-14....but its kind of unfair since it has 2 crew and a bubble canopy. AS far as turn fight I don't know. It would be interesting though!! Yes the F-14 wasn't made to dogfight but it COULD!!!! In fact all A2A kills in the USnavy with the cat were dogfight and fairly close in. I think it could fair well against the MIg 17 and 21....flanker and fuilcrum it would havea hard trime though. ME I really question if the F/A-18F can outdo the A-6F in the strike role. I have been hearing either it can't or it can. So boys....whats your opinion? I sure as hell know it can A2A better bu that is common sense. Me I do not really hate MDC>..just well as most of you mad because the superbug is replacing my beloved tomcat. =( in fact I like the A-4, and F-4 a LOT! same with F-15...and hell even the F/A-18...just hate it replacing the tomcat and intruder...(super) I am glad the missleer and F-111B died!! thhank god rhe tomcat was chosen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronocidal Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Heheh.. on that note, I've got to share something.. I know this came up a while ago, but you'd never guess what I found while looking for an old set of Tomcat schematics... Proof that they did make a Jolly Roger version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 yea thats from the flying fighters toyline! I saw the jolly roger version with that poster in an ebay auction! I had the sundowqners one but nver saw the jolly until the auction! Sure its old as hell and out of proportion but from hasbro what really isnt?(besides transformers). that was a GREAT toyline! I only wish tyhey reissue it! I loved how they had multirole weaponry and all in each set! Wrong places but still very very GEE. Hey david, since we brought up planes and such in this section, what do you think of dragon warbirds? Can they stand up to play? Me thinking bout the upcoming tomcats and superhornet/Eagle C model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Dragon's Warbirds are the best diecast military jets you can buy IMHO. But for a nit-picker like me, nothing but building it yourself is good enough, accuracy-wise. I think their F-18 is better than their F-16. Their F-15E has *serious* accuracy issues, the C/D has few to none. (gotta see "real" ones, not prototype/samples---heat exchanger vents and ECM antenna config are iffy) Haven't seen Super Hornet WELL, just a few pics from trade shows. Looked good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 guys thought up some more debates A-7 vs A-4 we all know the a-4 could run cirlces cround fatty here, but was the A-7 a better bomber than the A-4? A-7F vs F-8 an F-15 engine in the A-7 vs the F-8. Wiuth the added power, could the A-7F take on the crusader? F-4J vs Tornado mk 3 autowing sweep vs non wing sweep.....which of these interceptyors would fair better in A2A intercept and dogfighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 There's an article about F-15s mock dogfighting with RHinos in the new issue of Aircraft illustrated (it's a British mag but you can find it in most Borders or Barnes & Nobel's). While most of the article is an interservice variation on the old stand up comedy routine about the differences between white people and black people (Air Force pilots walk like this, while the Navy Pilots walk like this) it does confirm my suspisions about the Rhino. Boiled down the Rhino lost most of the time because it just didn't have the thrust to win the fight. The Eagle and Shornet are about the same wieght but the Rhino has about 6,000 lbs less thrust. I don't know if I mentioned it in this thread or another but I definetly think the Super Hornet needs better engines, a good pair of 35,000 lb F135s would definetly help the Rhino with most of it's problems (except drag but in most situations the extra thrust would compensate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 There's an article about F-15s mock dogfighting with RHinos in the new issue of Aircraft illustrated (it's a British mag but you can find it in most Borders or Barnes & Nobel's). While most of the article is an interservice variation on the old stand up comedy routine about the differences between white people and black people (Air Force pilots walk like this, while the Navy Pilots walk like this) it does confirm my suspisions about the Rhino. Boiled down the Rhino lost most of the time because it just didn't have the thrust to win the fight. The Eagle and Shornet are about the same wieght but the Rhino has about 6,000 lbs less thrust. I don't know if I mentioned it in this thread or another but I definetly think the Super Hornet needs better engines, a good pair of 35,000 lb F135s would definetly help the Rhino with most of it's problems (except drag but in most situations the extra thrust would compensate). WOW now thats thrust ona super bug tim the toolman taylor would drool at!! I knid of figured as such. The super bug can pitch fast but its not exactly the world's fastest fighter. The eagle has a lot of raw power. That thing was made to do high spoeed and still be able to dogfight althought it was not the emphasis. eagle's just dominate A2A. I think it would be awesome to see some pilots do mock dogfighting with super bug against eagle. Raw power vs the instantaneous turner. Hearing stuff lke this rekindles my fantasies of a blackboard knifefighting with intenal cannon. Awkward but blackbirdsd RULE?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) Ugh. I wish they wouldn't call the Super Hornet "Rhino". That one's already taken by the F-4. Edit: so, did the article mention any difference in tactics? How did the Super Hornets try to compensate for lack of thrust? Edited July 26, 2004 by ewilen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts