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.
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]
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...
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.
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.
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]
Originally posted by Browno
This new Superhornet is not so super say the pilots who previously flew the F-14 Tomcat.
Originally posted by JFrazier
...the Super Hornet is still a pretty potent aircraft. It's a much better strike fighter than air superior/interceptor...
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.
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
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]