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.

 

Hmmm, how wrong this site is...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
The U.S Navy has had better aircraft than the U.S AirForce at times, such as the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-14 Tomcat.

Shattered OUT...




posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The U.S Navy has had better aircraft than the U.S AirForce at times, such as the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-14 Tomcat.

Shattered OUT...

hmm really.
i thought both got the same aircraft , oh well you learn something new everyday!



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The U.S Navy has had better aircraft than the U.S AirForce at times, such as the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-14 Tomcat.

Shattered OUT...

hmm really.
i thought both got the same aircraft , oh well you learn something new everyday!

Yes, the YF-17 was competeing with the F-16 Fighting Falcon for a position in the U.S Aircforce, the F-16 won, but the NAVY looked into the YF-17 and transformed it into the F/A-18 Hornet and so it became a Navy and Marines aircraft.

The F-14 was a more advanced version of the F-4 Phantom, the Navy wanted a better aircraft one to fit the role of Interceptor.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   


The F-14 was a more advanced version of the F-4 Phantom, the Navy wanted a better aircraft one to fit the role of Interceptor.

Shattered OUT...


Shattered, this is starting to look like I'm jumping on you but please believe me when I say thats not what I'm about here. Its just that I hate these vague and incorrect statements which don't deny ignorance at all, maybe its my failing that I'm a stickler for accuracy and I know we all make mistakes but if I may contradict you once more;

The F-14 bore no relation whatsoever to the F-4, it was borne out of the Navy's need to replace the F-4 and began as a Grumman study into how to make a workable carrier based fighter out of the failed F-111B.

Grumman soon came to the conclusion that only an all new design would suffice and so the F-14 programme was born, it was not a more advanced version of anything, it was entirely new.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
First off, I never said the F-14 boure any relation to the F-4, I said the Navy needed a new advanced version and it also needed a new Interceptor.

There was a competition between two companies I think three, Lockheed was involved but was dropped out, and Grumman won the contract to build the F-14.

Please don't talk to me without having the facts.

And I agree, Grumman realized that the Navy required an entirely new aircraft in order for the role of interceptor needed ot be fitted.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
First off, I never said the F-14 boure any relation to the F-4, Yes you did! You said it was a more advanced version OF THE F-4!I said the Navy needed a new advanced version you said it again! and it also needed a new Interceptor.

There was a competition between two companies I think three, Lockheed was involved but was dropped out, and Grumman won the contract to build the F-14.

Please don't talk to me without having the facts.Well if you know what your talking about why did you say the F-14 was a version of the F-4 and then deny it in your next post????

And I agree, Grumman realized that the Navy required an entirely new aircraft in order for the role of interceptor needed ot be fitted.Pardon?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   


But I agree - the YF-23 was such an ass kicker! Maybe the Navy will take a look at it....


Acually it did. After the ATF the navy looked at both but decided instead to develop the Super Hornet! Talk about missed opportunities, but there's the Navy for ya.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   

the US navy with better planes than the US air force?
hmm


The US navy is looking to get a F/A-22 version to use. They have no interest in the F-23, If the navy get s a version of the F-22 then things will get really interesting. the navy would finally have a plane that can take the F-14s place.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

the US navy with better planes than the US air force?
hmm


The US navy is looking to get a F/A-22 version to use. They have no interest in the F-23, If the navy get s a version of the F-22 then things will get really interesting. the navy would finally have a plane that can take the F-14s place.

Stop saying that the F-22 raptor will do everything in every branch possible, the F-22 is not that great, I agree, it is a new generation fighter but it is a light fighter and the only thing that makes it so special is the Supercruise, stealth, and thrust vectoring.

The Navy had looked into a version of the JSF so the F-22 raptor will not be used for the Navy, that would be useless and a waste of money.

And waynes, you're not that smart if you think you can bite my head off on every post.

And I did not contradict what I typed in my posts, you turned and twisted what I typed to make yourself look good, even when I was agreeing with you. You were blind and stupid.

I have read in fact books that the Navy did need a better aircraft than the F4H-Phantom, and the F-14 won the contract.

I was wrong to say the F-14 was anything like the F4H, but the F-14 was built to succeed the F4H, even though they had two different roles.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Well, although the program lost, it still looks cool ...... Last I knew, it was still sitting on an empty run pad at Edwards AFB in California. I snapped this photo one day back in yr 2000. We wanted to make a static display out of it, but I think it was going to the aviation museum. I heard that it pretty much out performed the F-22 in most cases but the design was too radical. I like it. . . . . . . . . .



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   

[Stop saying that the F-22 raptor will do everything in every branch possible, the F-22 is not that great, I agree, it is a new generation fighter but it is a light fighter and the only thing that makes it so special is the Supercruise, stealth, and thrust vectoring
The Navy had looked into a version of the JSF so the F-22 raptor will not be used for the Navy, that would be useless and a waste of money..No it isn't a light fighter, its.................oh whats the use, because.............


And waynes, you're not that smart if you think you can bite my head off on every post.

I really didn't mean to bite your head off, if I did that then I am sorry, I only intended to correct an error, but I did get snappy, I apologise for that

And I did not contradict what I typed in my posts, you turned and twisted what I typed to make yourself look good, even when I was agreeing with you. You were blind and stupid.

Now whos biting heads off? I twisted nothing the words "the F-14 was a more advanced version of the F-4 Phantom" were yours and are clear in their meaning. Then you said "I never said that.....etc". I am not trying to look good, no-one on here knows who I am so what would be the point? 'Denying Ignorance' means making the bare facts clear as far as I can see, this was, and remains, my only aim

I have read in fact books that the Navy did need a better aircraft than the F4H-Phantom, and the F-14 won the contract.
YES, that is absolutely correct, but not what you originally said


I was wrong to say the F-14 was anything like the F4H, but the F-14 was built to succeed the F4H, even though they had two different roles.Thats all I was pointing out.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


The F-14 was a more advanced version of the F-4 Phantom, the Navy wanted a better aircraft one to fit the role of Interceptor.

Shattered OUT...


Shattered, this is starting to look like I'm jumping on you but please believe me when I say thats not what I'm about here. Its just that I hate these vague and incorrect statements which don't deny ignorance at all, maybe its my failing that I'm a stickler for accuracy and I know we all make mistakes but if I may contradict you once more;

The F-14 bore no relation whatsoever to the F-4, it was borne out of the Navy's need to replace the F-4 and began as a Grumman study into how to make a workable carrier based fighter out of the failed F-111B.

Grumman soon came to the conclusion that only an all new design would suffice and so the F-14 programme was born, it was not a more advanced version of anything, it was entirely new.


How much more polite could I have been?



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
radical usualy brings inavation.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I say cancell the F-35c and build the F-22N, a strengthened raptor with bigger, less swept wings and carrier gear and include the ground attack systems of the JSF and The more powerful Boeing JSF version of the F119 engine because its the most powerful and still has thrust vectoring.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
what?
why? the JSF will update the USN/RN fleets with new hover planes.
the JSF will be good for the marines for gound support,the navy doesnt need a new air superiority fighter.
they should get some money for the YF23



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Im not saying cancell the B-model (hovering one) im talking about the CTOL version, which is pretty mediocre. The YF-23 would be too big and heavy for a carrier, and the F-22 has already been tested and developed.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Im not saying cancell the B-model (hovering one) im talking about the CTOL version, which is pretty mediocre. The YF-23 would be too big and heavy for a carrier, and the F-22 has already been tested and developed.

yeah i actually meant for USAF use i mean the navy doesnt need an f22 for its fleet.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
The JSF would not be the JSF if it only went to the NAVY it would just be plain F-35b, you have to take into account that the JSF was built for all three branches to suite not only American needs but Royal AF and Royal Navy needs, so the aircraft is extremely flexible, so don't expect it to be perfect, it will not perform as much as the the F-22 will, but like I said, it is flexible.

And the YF-23 was built to be a new heavy NAVY interceptor, so If it looks heavy and bulky, well it is supposed to, when I first saw the F-14, I thought it was bulky and too heavy for Navy Carriers but then grew to love the F-14 for the aircraft that it is, so don't throw the YF-23 out the window for its looks, just trust that it can do the job as good if not better than the F-22.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
There was a joint Northrop/BAe proposal to build a version of the YF-23 for the RAF to meet the FOAS requirement.

It was after the F/A-22 had been selected and was probably just a way to salvage the programme.


BAe Replica

perhaps this is what came of that project?



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   
doubt it
this was a UK only project.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join