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 SteveR
Plane is still required. Guns/cannon are extremely useful when used on an airbourne platform. So if you still need planes, you need them to be defensible. Thus your fancy airframes and dogfighting equipments.
Originally posted by esecallum
i am afraid the military industrial complex has brainwashed you into all the lies to get more money.
that boulton ancient plane with a turret FIRED GUNS NOT MISSILES.
why are you misleading people?
and the guns were fired from an open cockpit!!!
manuelly!!!
we are 50 years on now...
why are are you using ancient UNRELATED craft to dismiss an idea?
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
he never asks why they never actually work.
[edit on 1-8-2007 by esecallum]
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Originally posted by esecallum
i am afraid the military industrial complex has brainwashed you into all the lies to get more money.
Are you sure? I thought they had just bought us all off and we were spreading disinfo for money.
That's what you said last time I disagreed with you.
At any rate, I work for the military-industrial complex, so I don't get paid extra, sad to say.
Originally posted by esecallum
Originally posted by SteveR
Plane is still required. Guns/cannon are extremely useful when used on an airbourne platform. So if you still need planes, you need them to be defensible. Thus your fancy airframes and dogfighting equipments.
you are all wrong.
a plane cannot dodge bullets and a.c.f.
unless you are in the movies.
Originally posted by esecallum
are you not that "journalist" who swallows ever lie,hook, line and sinker pedaled by BIG PHARMA just because they give him a free $2 buffet and a beer.
this guy reports on every new wonder cancer cure drug of the week at the press conferences of big pharma.
boulton guns were manuely fired and aimed...
you are trying to cloud the issue...
wherever i go there you are.
Originally posted by thebozeian
esecallum, in regard to the Boulton-Paul Defiant would you please look up the word analogy in the dictionary. waynos is completely correct, he is trying to point out that the idea of a slewable missile launcher is completely redundant(pointless) in view of the fact that a straight and level aircraft launching it in a WVR engagement will itself be more vulnerable, in much the same way as a straight and level Defiant PROVED to be vulnerable, whether it fired guns, missiles or Spanish waiters(Que? Mr Fawltey) isn't the point . It is you who have been misleading 'a la' attacking Tom Bedlam on an unrelated topic, not waynos.
As you have already been told the aerodynamic loads such a system would impart on what would be by its design premise WVR, would necessitate beefing up considerably the airframe of BOTH the aircraft and missile. There goes your, "no need for fancy airframes theory" It would also be somewhat heavier and technically complex and therefore potentially more unreliable than a fixed pylon or bomb bay trapeze/ram ejector arrangement.missile launch failure rate and the need to completely redesign or newly design missiles to cope with the tremendous aerodynamic and G loads such a launch system would impart on it. And so bang goes your "military/industrial" complex conspiracy as they would need to spend even more of our money finding a way to keep you happy.
This idea sounds nice in your head, but it doesn't make sense in the real world.
LEE.
[edit on 1-8-2007 by thebozeian]
How so? You make a statement and then don't indicate what you mean.
i am afraid you are totally wrong.
the complexity you mention is absurd.
the f35 for example has a huge fan for vtol lift...
with gears...
including the complexity...
the missiles are simply put into a disc shaped turret.
to fire one the disc shaped turret pops out for 1 second shoots the missile at the target and pops into the airframe flush with the surface.
JUST LIKE THE STEALTH BOMBER which does a very similar thing with missiles.
NO WAY CAN U REFUTE THAT..
i fear the reason you are making spuriuos objections is simple envy.
you did not think of it first so you try to dismiss the idea.
.
when everyone has forgotten then you will claim the idea as your own...
i find that morally reprehensible.