It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The names of the planes

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Well
Who can tell me what's kind of animal the Grumman F8F Bearcat show?




posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes, i was just stating that the Wild Weasel was a version of the Phantom II. Not a Phantom II itself.

Example:
F-4E is a Phantom II
F-4C is a Phantom II
F-4D Wild Weasel is a Phantom II
[edit on 18-2-2006 by ULTIMA1]


Not Really! Wild Weasel is a mission, not an aircraft. Today the F-16 flies the Wild Weasel mission.

Wild Weasel is the Airforce's nick name for the SEAD mission the first Wild Weasel was an F-100 in Viet Nam. Here you go, check out the Wild Weasel Mission:
Wild Weasel

Any aircraft that is modified to fly the SEAD mission is a Wild Weasel!

Tim



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Didn't say the Skyhawk was bad, just that it didn't come out of the Falklands looking good.

Nor did, as you mentioned, Mirage.

On the other hand, the Super Entendard did a lot of good self-publicity work.

I can't remember the Aussie press having anything to say, but at the time Mirage and Skyhawk were recent (or current) in the RAAF and RAN inventories. Wonder if there was anything said about us having jets the RN had just punished so badly.

As for nicknames...Thunderbolt was called Jug, not unreasonable given its size and shape, but when did Thunderbolt 2 officially become the Warthog?

And why would English Electric/BAC call their Mach 2 interceptor the Lightning, when that had been an American bird and not a British one, couldn't they think of something else that was fast?



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Snippets

After the Falklands, BAe sat back and waited for the 'inevitable' flood of export orders for the Sea Harrier. Oops


As for the Lightning, the name wasn't only chosen to denote speed, it was also to do with its manufacturers being called English Electric.

Other 'transatlantic' names include 'Jaguar' (Grumman, Sepecat) Hornet (de Havilland, MDC/Boeing) and, perhaps most obscurely of all, Nighthawk (Nieuport, Lockheed).

It still surprises me that Germany was happy to go along with 'Eurofighter Typhoon' when you consider what the Hawker Typhoon did to their countrymen during WW2. Can you ever imagine the RAF calling its first shiny new stealthy UCAV the 'Stuka II'? I certainly can't


[edit on 21-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   


Didn't say the Skyhawk was bad, just that it didn't come out of the Falklands looking good.


I don't know, a bunch of planes from a not particularly wealthy South American country, flying right into the teeth of one of the most advanced and best trained fleets on the planet. The fact that any of them survived, let alone that they did the damage they did, does them some credit I'd think.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Yes, xmotex, that battles are won or lost can give an aircraft or indeed a particular fighting service an undeserved reputation.

However, those folks that actually purchase the aircraft look beyond the "public" aura surrounding the propaganda and take into account the tactical situation which led to the result. That there was no flood of orders for the Sea Harrier after the Falklands, nor any great rush on the part of manufacturers to build a similar type of aircraft indicates that the aircraft or aircraft type wasn't perhaps everything that it's public mythology said it was.

To see the true worth of an aircraft, you have to compare who is buying the aircraft and what role they are using it in. For instance, the USMC uses the Harrier in an entirely different role than the RN used the Sea Harrier in the Falklands. The USMC, to some extent relies on the USN to provide the top cover, while the Harriers are used as mud-field deployable bomb trucks. Their air-to-air capability is (in this context) more a matter of self-defence - almost like hanging Sidewinders on Nimrods.

There is still an ongoing controversy surrounding VTOL and its advantages and disadvantages, and any publicity regarding an aircraft has to be taken in context.

The tactical situation in the Falklands favoured the Sea Harrier. It was also a situation forced upon the British because of their choice of carriers (their size meant that only an aircraft such as Sea Harrier could be operated from them).

Different situations and different adversaries might lead to a totally different result. For instance Sea Harrier v Hornet or Sea Harrier v Su-27, or indeed Sea Harrier v Phantom given a suitable tactical situation.

In the Falklands case it is interesting to note that, given the tactical situation, while the Sea Harriers achieved some victories, they were unable to keep the attacking Skyhawks away from the British landing fleet, nor were they able to intercept the Super Etendards before they launched their Exocets - and isn't this the aim of having them onboard in the first place. Compare this with the same role as filled, for the USN, by the Tomcat and the Hornet, off larger carriers.

So you have two primary roles here.

1. Keep attacking aircraft away from your stand-off base (the carrier) - that even the British doubted that the Sea Harrier was capable could be perhaps inferred by the fact that they kept the carriers beyond the stike range of most of the Argie aircraft and still didn't stop the Exocet launches = Sea Harrier fails!

2. Achieve air superiority over the landing fleet to keep attacking aircraft from disrupting the landings. The Skyhawks continued to get through in numbers = Sea Harrier fails!

waynos, while the manufacturers use the name "Typhoon" in their publicity as the official RAF allocated name, is it true that the Luftwaffe has accepted "Typhoon" as an official name for the aircraft. Indeed, does the Luftwaffe allocate names?

[edit on 21/2/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
From the little German stuff I read from time to time, it seems the Germans use the name "Eurofighter".



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The inability of the Sea Harriers to intercept the Super Etendards before launching their missiles was more down to a lack off any sort of AEW cover than it was down to a fault inherent in the Sea Harrier itself, This was addressed by the creation of the Sea King AEW (now the Sea King ASaC.7) as a rsult of the conflict. The superiority of the F-14 in this role (apart from the obvious range advantage of the F-14 itself) was also helped enormously by the presence of the Grumman E-2, a facility the RN had lacked since the retirement of the Fairey Gannet in 1978. The rest of that post however was pretty spot on for me
The defeating of two USN F-14's by a pair of Sea Harriers is much celebrated in the RN but nobody is silly enough to think that it could ever be the norm in a genuine combat situation.

As for the The Typhoon, this name was actually allocated to the type officially by Eurofightert GmBH a long time before the RAF decided to call it anything other than 'Eurofighter'. I haven't seen any German sources relating to Luftwaffe aircraft directly so I don't know what they call the plane themselves but Typhoon is its official type name, not just its RAF name. This was what I was referring to.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Waynos you made me look a bit more, since my affirmation was based on newspaper articles. Actually the Luftwaffe official site (www.luftwaffe.de) only uses the term Eurofighter, the name Typhoon never appears.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by echoblade
Actually the Luftwaffe official site (www.luftwaffe.de) only uses the term Eurofighter, the name Typhoon never appears.


Cheers echoblade
I'm not really surprised by that, re my earlier post on the name



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Trivia: The Boulton Paul "Defiant" was so called because it defied common sense.


The CAC "boomerang" was ironically named since when you threw them at the enemy, they tended not to come back.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Harsh planeman, very harsh !


Aircraft are named with intent, not necessarily result !

And, the Boomerang was intended to be an Army co-operation aircraft, not a state-of-the-art fighter - it was really only a re-arrangement of Wirraway parts after all. Damn, I don't seem to be able to make my Boomerang come back either! As an aside, when Airfix went bust the first time, I understand the Boomerang moulds went to New Zealand, but got badly damaged in transit - so in that sense, the Boomerang isn't coming back !

Waynos, the Sea Harrier's (then) lack of BVR missiles mitigated against it being able to mount a successful CAP regardless of how far you could see. Without the gear to shoot down at that range (with either long-range BVR missiles or by the ability to intercept at sufficient range from the carrier - read supersonic dash or greater numbers of picket aircraft further from the carrier - read greater range and endurance, air-to-air refuelling), the idea that being able to "see" that far out is a greater protection for the fleet is an illusion.

That the F-14 is possibly the best aircraft for this particular job is down to it's range, endurance, speed, air-to-air refuelling capability and armament, which all go toward reducing the number of airborne pickets required to do the job, while covering the area necessary to protect the fleet from sea-skimming missile launchers - that it works so well with E-2 is a function of the fact that the Tomcat's capabilities actually exceed the capability of surface radar systems. Most of the above mentioned qualities appear to be missing from the Sea Harrier's specification.

Well of course the Brits had no carrier-borne AWACS capability, all the APS 20s had been taken out of the Gannets and put under Shackletons. Was this a retrograde step, or what? Like, OK let's take the sets out of the Avengers and put them in Skyraiders, OK, let's move the sets to something new like a Gannet derivative - works for me - but OK, let's pull them out again and then hang them on a derivative of a 1940 bomber.


[edit on 22/2/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I can't fault your logic or reasoning about the Sea Harrier, Wombat, it is after all why the F/A.2 was created. I was talking about the interceptions of the Etendards specifically though, Its not like the Sea Harrier's tried to intercept them and failed, I already agree completely with your description of its CAP shortcomings. The lack of AEW meant the incoming Etendards weren't seen and so no interception was even tried, thats all I meant. This wasn't down to range or BVR failings in the Sea Harrier (which yes, were very real) but down to the lack of AEW.

That whole episode of keep re-using the same old radar sets in different airframes is pathetic isn't it
At the very time that the E-3 was being developed we were fitting 1940's radar sets into their third airframe, also of 1940's vintage
You wouldn't expect that from a third world country.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
And let's not mention the Nimrod AEW.3 shall we ! (it was a postwar - just - airframe after all)

Interesting that the USN has had a similar size problem with the EMBRAER airframe, but at least they discovered it pretty early - but still embarrassing.

Sometimes you can look at a design (in retrospect usually) and wonder - just what were the designers thinking when they did this - for instance Rockwell XFV-12 (never got off the tarmac) or the HS.141 VTOL airliner (where did they think they were going to put the luggage) - they seem to get some half-baked idea and just run and run with it regardless of whether the resulting aircraft is practical or meets the specification.

[edit on 24/2/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Agreed, although the HS 141 was pretty



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Pretty what ? Pretty silly?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Boom Boom! As Basil Brush would say



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Does Doctor who can make a list of Soviet Seaplane's nickname out of NATO?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Okay, not necessrily flattering nicknames...

Apparently the Belgian air force called the Fouga trainer "the whistling turtle"...

As mentioned (I think), the RAAF call the F111 the Pig.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Military planners often messed up by allocating cool names to aircraft which ultimately didn't reach service, thus robbing the name. The Convair B-32 "Dominator" - cool name, wasted... oh, and it was originally called the "Terminator"... another good name wasted....


Another waste of a good name at that time was the Douglas B-23 "Dragon"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join