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.

 

F-15N Sea Eagle

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Browno

Please read your u2u's

Thanks
FredT




posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno


There was even a proposed Naval Eurofighter but the Royal Navy has turned this down for the F-35 JSF. Arent the British MOD supposed to have two Nuclear Powered Supercarriers at the start of the next decade?. The Eurofighter is a good plane but coudnt it be designed more 'stealthy' like the F/A-22?.

I also thought that European countries want thier own Aircraft Industry now instead of buying 'US' Planes all the time.

www.royal-navy.mod.uk...
www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...


[edit on 12-11-2005 by Browno]


In my opinion the Eurofighters is a Hell'a good fighter because it isn't so stealty, stealth is never good for maneuverability in my opinion...



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Browno, we may be veering too much off topic here but I would be happy to take part in a discussion of UK aircraft carriers if you want to start one in a new thread.


[edit on 13-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
In my opinion the Eurofighters is a Hell'a good fighter because it isn't so stealty, stealth is never good for maneuverability in my opinion...


I agree that the Typhoon is a superb fighter, but how can you say stealth is never good for maneuverability? The Raptor can out turn the Typhoon



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Maybe he meant in purely aerodynamic terms? After all if the Raptor had a fixed nozzle the Typhoon would fly rings round it, using purely aerodynamic means.

Of course it is a moot point pbecause the Raptors nozzles are not fixed and that is why the ' Typhoon F.3' (my own designation for RAF tranche 3 models, not official - yet) will most likely have the 3D EJ-200 that has been under development.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Maybe he meant in purely aerodynamic terms? After all if the Raptor had a fixed nozzle the Typhoon would fly rings round it, using purely aerodynamic means.

Of course it is a moot point pbecause the Raptors nozzles are not fixed and that is why the ' Typhoon F.3' (my own designation for RAF tranche 3 models, not official - yet) will most likely have the 3D EJ-200 that has been under development.


Yes, that is what i meant... When you design a really maneuverable plane you just have to think about maneuverability. But when you make a stealthy plane, it's very hard to get in both the stealth and aility... Because they tend to need different shapes from a plane...



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Fair enough.

Not to get too off topic, but...




Of course it is a moot point pbecause the Raptors nozzles are not fixed and that is why the ' Typhoon F.3' (my own designation for RAF tranche 3 models, not official - yet) will most likely have the 3D EJ-200 that has been under development.


Waynos, do you think that the notorious budget cuts may effect if those 3d TVC engines actually come into service? I mean, if the UK can't afford bullets for it's gun, will they poney up for what should be very expensive engines?

[edit on 13-11-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Good question, and I don't really know the answer but I would say that its not a question of the UK not being able to afford bullets for the guns, more a case of choosing not to buy them. It is a choice I disagree with, but at least it is one which is easily changed. After all, how likely is it that a country can develop a fighter like the Typhoon but not be able to afford to buy bullets?

If the defence cuts affect the Typhoon in the near future it will be in the numbers bought but not their level of capability, for example the tranche 3 aircraft might be scrapped altogether, but that does not mean the RAF will have to make do with less capable aircraft as all the improvements incorporated into the tranche 3 standard will be retrofitted to existing aircraft to bring them up to a common standard. This would have to happen whether the tranche 3 aircraft were bought or not, it has been an integral part of the plan from the beginning. For a parallel look to the Tornado programme, there are far fewer of them in service than were originally purchased, but those that are in use are all fully kitted to the highest possible standard, so it would be with the Typhoon even if tranche 3 production was cancelled.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Browno, we may be veering too much off topic here but I would be happy to take part in a discussion of UK aircraft carriers if you want to start one in a new thread.


[edit on 13-11-2005 by waynos]


Alright then, go to the military and government projects board, you will find it!



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
The new carriers are conventionaly powered, not nuclear.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   
This new Superhornet is not so super say the pilots who previously flew the F-14 Tomcat. To me , It is just an overgrown Hornet and is just basically the same in all points. I find it is a waste of money and even if they navalised the F-15 it may be more expensive than the superhornet but at the end of the day- you will have a more advanced fighter even though it may not use the AIM-54 Phoenix missile.

I dont think it will take up space on the carrier becouse it is about the same size as the F-14 and about the same weight, If it was navalised it may have a shorter nose and folding wings. The F-14 actually has a much bigger wingspan than the Eagle, especially when spread and if the wings were folded on the F-15N they would be shorter than the F-14 wings moved back.

Just if all this thought thouroughly before?

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Browno]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Get on this, F-14 Tomcat trialled by the USAF.






posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
That F-14 was used for a USAF study for a long-range interceptor. Turns out that the Tomcat could carry 6 Phoenix missiles further than the USAF's own F-15s so they wanted one to test. Never really turned out though.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
This new Superhornet is not so super say the pilots who previously flew the F-14 Tomcat.

I've heard some of the opposite from former legacy Hornet and some Tomcat pilots. The former Tomcat pilots mainly complain about top-end accleration and range. Basically, the things the Tomcat was made to excel in. On the up side, pilots are praising the avionics, versatility, and ease of flying(low speed, carrier landing, high alpha, etc.) of the Super Hornet.

With the rumored uprated engines coming and the AESA radar already in service, the Super Hornet is still a pretty potent aircraft. It's a much better strike fighter than air superior/interceptor which is what the Navy is looking at now and in the future with the F-35.

What the Navy really should have now is the NATF and the A-12 but that's only a dream now.


[edit on 19-9-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
...the Super Hornet is still a pretty potent aircraft. It's a much better strike fighter than air superior/interceptor...


Even so I still think in the A2A role the Block II (or future Block III) would be more than a match for any version of the Tomcat. Radar, avionics, LO features, better BVR missile etc...


[edit on 19-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It's just too expensive to navalize the F-15. As previously stated by someone else every square inch would have to be redesigned. Stick with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. It's more than a match to anything else in it's class and it's only going to get better.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier


What the Navy really should have now is the NATF and the A-12 but that's only a dream now.




Why would the Navy want an A12 like what would they use it for, and how in the world would you takeoff let alone land one on a carrier



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
Why would the Navy want an A12 like what would they use it for, and how in the world would you takeoff let alone land one on a carrier

The A-12 was going to be the Navy's premier stealth attack aircraft before it's cancellation in the early 90's. Were you thinking that I was talking about the old A-12 spyplane?

A-12 link

[edit on 20-9-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
now it makes sense. Yes I was thinking about the old A12 CIA spyplane, thanks for setting me straight


[edit on 21-9-2006 by warpboost]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
This new Superhornet is not so super say the pilots who previously flew the F-14 Tomcat. To me , It is just an overgrown Hornet and is just basically the same in all points. I find it is a waste of money and even if they navalised the F-15 it may be more expensive than the superhornet but at the end of the day- you will have a more advanced fighter even though it may not use the AIM-54 Phoenix missile.

I dont think it will take up space on the carrier becouse it is about the same size as the F-14 and about the same weight, If it was navalised it may have a shorter nose and folding wings. The F-14 actually has a much bigger wingspan than the Eagle, especially when spread and if the wings were folded on the F-15N they would be shorter than the F-14 wings moved back.

Just if all this thought thouroughly before?

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Browno]


Of course you are going to love your first pet more than the one you get when it dies. It's totally natural, but believe me soon everybody will be fans of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Besides, there are always two sides of every story. So you can't say every F-14 pilot hates it.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join