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-15 Active

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

The F-15 has proven valuable to the United States Air Force for almost 10 years, 101-0 A2A kills, it is undefeated.


yeah because it has not faught any foe that can go past mach 1


So I guess all of those Israeli Mig kills were all against subsonic aircraft? Or the AF kills against Migs, Mirages, and Sukhois in Desert Storm?



[edit on 10/9/04 by COOL HAND]




posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
hmm i didnt know about those fulcrums.
there were mirages there?
oh well.
iv got to give you that cool hand



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
How someone can look at an F-15 and say its nothing is beyond my level of understanding, all aircraft have a special place in history because they all lead to future develpments to better aircraft, the inferior aircraft is not the old one, but is the new one.

For example, the YB-49 Northrop Flying wing was not inferior to the B-2 Spirit Bomber because without the YB-49, the B-2 would not have happened as soon as it did.

So when you look at the F-15 ACTIVE and say it is a piece of junk as special as my left foot, then you are saying all aircraft that use Thrust Vectoring are a piece of junk, you are admitting to that.

To me the F-15 is an amazing aircraft, I do not think anyone will doubt that, and the F-15 ACTIVE is just an experimental test bed so I doubt it would ever have gone into full production, its main goal was achieved, to test Thrust Vectoring in what ever conditions it had.

So I never expected it to go into full production, so for you to think that it was going to go into battle, then you are wrong.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
How someone can look at an F-15 and say its nothing is beyond my level of understanding, all aircraft have a special place in history because they all lead to future develpments to better aircraft, the inferior aircraft is not the old one, but is the new one.

For example, the YB-49 Northrop Flying wing was not inferior to the B-2 Spirit Bomber because without the YB-49, the B-2 would not have happened as soon as it did.

So when you look at the F-15 ACTIVE and say it is a piece of junk as special as my left foot, then you are saying all aircraft that use Thrust Vectoring are a piece of junk, you are admitting to that.

To me the F-15 is an amazing aircraft, I do not think anyone will doubt that, and the F-15 ACTIVE is just an experimental test bed so I doubt it would ever have gone into full production, its main goal was achieved, to test Thrust Vectoring in what ever conditions it had.

So I never expected it to go into full production, so for you to think that it was going to go into battle, then you are wrong.

Shattered OUT...


How can you have read my post and yet get my meaning so totally wrong?

I never said the F-15 was nothing.
I never said the F-15 ACTIVE was junk.
I never said that I thought he F-15 ACTIVE was going into battle.
I never dismissed previous generations of anything, F-15 related or otherwise so what the hell are you on about?

My post was entirely about people getting over excited about a test bed maybe being put into service, which is ludicrous.

BTW, The YB-49 had nothing whatsoever to do with the B-2 appearing 'as soon as it did'. It influenced Northrops design philosophy on the ATB but had no direct affect on the programme.

Hey, maybe the Typhoon is only as good as it is because of the Gloster Javelin? No, thats bollocks isn't it.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   


Although the influence of the YB-49 is obvious in the B-2 bomber, there is one key difference -- the B-2 uses stealth technology to make it nearly invisible to radar.


travel.howstuffworks.com...

Do not tell me the creation of the B-2 was not influenced by the YB-49.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 11-9-2004 by ShatteredSkies]

[edit on 11-9-2004 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   

It influenced Northrops design philosophy on the ATB but had no direct affect on the programme.



Er, I didn't say that it didn't influence it at all did I? Your doing it again


The ONLY link between the YB-49 and the B-2 is that they are both flying wing bombers built by Northrop, thats it, end of.

The two aircraft are aerodynamically, structurally and materially completely different, if you think that Northrop would build a bomber in the eighties that is largely the same as one they did in the forties then you are very wrong. Get some pictures of them and just look at them for starters.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Here you go, see the difference?






posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
The only difference thats sets the two apart dramatically is the stealth, which would explain the different mineral composition of the B-2.

That's the only difference.

And before I posted that site, I had been looking at 11 different pics of the YB-49 and a few of the B-2.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The only difference?

That will be apart from the different wing section, fins on the YB-49, fuselage centrebody (which house the nuclear weapon) on the YB-49, ventral weapon storage on the B2, different cockpits, undercarriage geometry, planform, control surface arragement, internal structural design of the entire aircraft, engine positions, inlets and exhaust.... and on, and on.

Just what exactly do you percieve to be 'the same'?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
WHOOOO chill down you two. the Flying wing of the yb-49 certainly affected thoutcome of the B-2 configuration, internally its a different style.Both planes could park in the exact same area and almost be mistaken by a casual observer from a plane overhead as the same plane with different paint jobs, but internally they are as different as night and day. The initially rough sketch of the b-2 was determined exactly as the yb-49 (flying wing, size) but of course, the devil is in the details.

P.S> the Germans DID NOT build the B-2, they are nothing alike. Period.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
The F-15 active does not look like the eurofighter Devil the only thing they have in common is the canards other than that its a totally different plane. The AF wont need this jet cuz once the raptor comes in good bye all F-15. It looks kool I think that is why they designed for show only.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 04:07 AM
link   
I believe that if you could theoretically get a YB-49 and a B-2 (maybe models of them) and you aligned them from every concievable different angle you could the only points at which they would match up would be along the leading edge looking from directly above, nowhere else at all.

I agree that Northrops design philosophy on the B-2 harped back to the YB-49, I even said it myself before being 'corrected'. Shattered's original statement was that 'without the YB-49 the B-2 would have appeared as soon as it did' or words to that effect, my point is that the timescale of when the B-2 appeared had nothing to do with the earlier type, because it was an entirely different design which still had to be developed from scratch.

PS Roniii, Germans??????

PPS Welcome back Wespoint! Nice to see you around again


[edit on 12-9-2004 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-15 active does not look like the eurofighter Devil the only thing they have in common is the canards other than that its a totally different plane. The AF wont need this jet cuz once the raptor comes in good bye all F-15. It looks kool I think that is why they designed for show only.

i was just saying with the canards it looks like a bigger version of the EF a bit.
dont bite my head off.
na i think the USAF will keep its F-15's even if just for reserves or for training.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Does the ANG fly F-15's? If so I can't really see part timers being given F/A-22's.

In the UK our equivalent of the ANG, the RAFVR, were disbanded in 1957 because it was felt that the Hawker Hunter was too 'hot' for the part timers!



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-15 active does not look like the eurofighter Devil the only thing they have in common is the canards other than that its a totally different plane. The AF wont need this jet cuz once the raptor comes in good bye all F-15. It looks kool I think that is why they designed for show only.

Last time I checked, not that many F-22 Raptors were going to be built, so do not think that F-22 Raptors will make up a large Majority of the AF fleet, only about 20 percent.

F-15s will last until new generation planes completely take up the AF, until then the F-15 will be a vital part of superiority.

O, and the idea for a long range flying wing did originate from Northrop and his YB-49 Flying Wing.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   


O, and the idea for a long range flying wing did originate from Northrop and his YB-49 Flying Wing.

Shattered OUT...


*sigh*
Yes, if you like. Except that it didn't, the YB 49 was just the jet powered verion of the XB-35, and there were several other Northrop flying wings before that. The concept and philosophy behind the B-2 is what sprang from the YB-49 and I have never said otherwise, can you read and understand English?

I'm getting bored of correcting your perpetual mistakes, but no doubt I will keep on trying to 'educate pork'. don't get offended, that last bit is just from a Yorkshire saying, not personal.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


O, and the idea for a long range flying wing did originate from Northrop and his YB-49 Flying Wing.

Shattered OUT...


*sigh*
Yes, if you like. Except that it didn't, the YB 49 was just the jet powered verion of the XB-35, and there were several other Northrop flying wings before that. The concept and philosophy behind the B-2 is what sprang from the YB-49 and I have never said otherwise, can you read and understand English?

I'm getting bored of correcting your perpetual mistakes, but no doubt I will keep on trying to 'educate pork'. don't get offended, that last bit is just from a Yorkshire saying, not personal.

Funny how you mentioned "pork" because I' am Portuguese and we are usually called porkchops as slang to make fun of us, so if you didn't mean to insult me, you did, but I won't take it to offense since you did not know.

And ok, so I made a mistake, but then again my mistakes originated from me talking to much, and not reading enough, my mistakes were minor and could still make a big difference, I know, but I based my facts on what I learned from books, History channel, and what I have seen on the internet, it is not uncommon that I have misunderstood something and turned it around.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Man, AC4 is a fantastic game. When I play against my mates (when they actually let me play them) I have to get them to choose a plane for me as a handicap. They always choose something slow like the F-4 or A-10, while they use the X0-2. I still beat them.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekial
Man, AC4 is a fantastic game. When I play against my mates (when they actually let me play them) I have to get them to choose a plane for me as a handicap. They always choose something slow like the F-4 or A-10, while they use the X0-2. I still beat them.

They must be sucky players, really they must, I rarely use the X-02 against anyone, I think it is not fair, so instead I use either the F-15 ACTIVE or the Su-37 Super Flanker.

But I always win either way, does not matter, I'm just too good a player for any body I know.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
It's all about tactics. They are dumb and keep looping around in circles trying to get a missile lock. I just AF away and AB turn back and fire my guns from long range in teh direction they are flying to steer them where i want them for a lock, or I just finish them with the guns.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join