Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
TAILHOOK (Read 1001 times)
May 16th, 2003 at 1:29am
BHOFMX   Ex Member

 
OK, OK, I've got the book out
CD player, sunroof, sparetire,
No, there,s no tailhook button
...


Shocked Shocked Shocked
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - May 16th, 2003 at 1:45am

ozzy72   Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender: male
Posts: 37122
*****
 
That could be because there isn't a Naval variant of the Typhoon?
However if you go into your keyboard assignments you can set a tailhook button Grin

Ozzy

PS. It'll only work on models with a tailhook that isn't connected to the flaps Wink
 

...
There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - May 16th, 2003 at 4:48am

Ivan   Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender: male
Posts: 6058
*****
 
was there ever one planned after dassault left the project?
 

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones),  Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - May 16th, 2003 at 8:09am
Iafpilot03   Guest

 
I don't think so, non of the countries developing it have carriers (Britain does not own any "real" carriers) so there wouldn't be a need for a carrier variant, however, I'm guessing that like most warplanes out there, it too has a tail-hook, for emergency breaking (I know all IAF aircraft have one)

Iafpilot
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - May 16th, 2003 at 11:58am

Tequila Sunrise   Offline
Colonel
Nunquam non paratus
Glasgow Scotland

Gender: male
Posts: 4149
*****
 
Actually the Royal Navy is set to get two new fleet carriers in about ten years so a carrier varient is plausible, if we don't go for F/A-18 E/Fs or the conventional carrier variant of the JSF Grin
meaning I may have to reconsider the Fleet Air Arm over the RAF for my potential career  as a pilot Grin
 

If someone with multiple personality disorder threatens suicide, is it a hostage situation?

Thou shalt maintain thine airspeed lest the ground shalt rise up and smite thee
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - May 16th, 2003 at 2:25pm
Iafpilot3   Guest

 
10 years is a long time mate,
they would have to be pretty stupid to go for a full-size carrier, and here's why:

the F-35 is a support aircraft, a "diet-F22" if you will, it's there to help the F-22, work together with it, its carrier version is fantastic, but you don't build up naval airpower out of one aircraft variant.

Judging by the developement on the Israeli and American front, in ten years tactical UAV's are gonna slowly step in for human pilots and do the "dirty work". in which case a plane like the X-45 doesn't really need a big carrier, just one of those heli carriers the British navy owns at the moment.

the F-35 is set to replace the Harriers in naval action, it has V/STOL capabilities, like the harrier, and does not require a catapult, or a big deck.

now why would the British navy spend billions on a new carrier when its heli-carriers are perfectly capable of taking on these (or other similar) aircraft?

kinda reminds me of their decision to take the gun off the Eurofighter, that's what the US did with the original Phantoms, turns out that once you're out of missiles you can't shoot anything down with a "clean" nose Wink

Iafpilot
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - May 16th, 2003 at 4:51pm

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
Quote:
Actually the Royal Navy is set to get two new fleet carriers in about ten years so a carrier varient is plausible, if we don't go for F/A-18 E/Fs or the conventional carrier variant of the JSF Grin
meaning I may have to reconsider the Fleet Air Arm over the RAF for my potential career  as a pilot Grin

About bloody time! I never did get why we got rid of our fleet carriers.

And IAFpilot, the reason why were getting nice big carriers is this. STOVL's are fine however they will never be as good or as fast as normal fixed wing aircraft. Also bigger carriers can hold more aircraft in 'em. Simple. Even if UAV's step in then they will still need aircraft carriers for navel ops and why not have big ones?

Another good reason for having fleet carriers is that when I join the Royal Navy I either want to captain a Destroyer or an Aircraft carrier. At the moment the destroyer option seems best as they look far better than our current carriers.

Also I figure that the JSF project is a complete waste of money. Give BAe the funds and they could have the Harrier upgraded to supersonic speeds in months. However, if it either aircraft had to be chosen then it would not be the Boeing one. It looks crap. Anyway the other one has BAe backing and is benifical to more than just america.
 

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - May 16th, 2003 at 6:38pm
BHOFMX   Ex Member

 
I try to make a funny and
spark a heated debate on
international arms Shocked

Cheesy CheesyI LOVE THIS PLACE Cheesy Cheesy

It is an honor to be a
member of this forum!

thank you
Bhofmx
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - May 16th, 2003 at 6:49pm

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
Quote:
I try to make a funny and
spark a heated debate on
international arms Shocked

Cheesy CheesyI LOVE THIS PLACE Cheesy Cheesy

It is an honor to be a
member of this forum!

thank you
Bhofmx

HAHA Anything can happen! Grin
 

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - May 16th, 2003 at 7:47pm

Tequila Sunrise   Offline
Colonel
Nunquam non paratus
Glasgow Scotland

Gender: male
Posts: 4149
*****
 
Like woody said the JSF will have a V/TOL varient, but it will be hevier slower , have a larger RCS and a lower payload capability. Its also being designed to replace not just the F-16, but the F-18 and Harrier and possibly A-10, I'll have tto look that up. As to building a naval air power on one type it used to be imposible but that was because of the way aircraft were designed, high wing aircraft made good bombers but were cumbersome while low wing aircraft were agile but had low payloads, now with the arrival of fly-by-wire technology computers can corect for aerodynamic inbalances allowing one type to conduct several mission variants often in one flight, thus allowing aircraft to self escort. There are a few examples of this already in service ie: F-16 (replaced A-7D attack aircraft and F-106 interceptors), Rafale (replaced Etandard strike aircraft, F-8 interceptors ine the Aeronavale and Mirrages in the Armee del Aire), also the Eurofighter is set to replace Tornado F.3 Interceptors, Jaguar Gr.3 attack/recon aircraft and possibly Tornado Gr.1A recon and Gr.4 bombers in the RAF, Tornadoes of the Luftwaffe, Luftmarine/Marineflieger, Tornadoes and F-104s f the Italiam airforce and F-18s of the Fuerza aeria)

Sorry about the 12 line sentance  Tongue
 

If someone with multiple personality disorder threatens suicide, is it a hostage situation?

Thou shalt maintain thine airspeed lest the ground shalt rise up and smite thee
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - May 17th, 2003 at 1:47am

IAFpilot03   Offline
Colonel
if (stick pushed down)
house_size++;
ISRAEL

Gender: male
Posts: 27
*****
 
about the F-35, there is no Boeing variant, the F-32 lost (although it was far better) a while ago, and developement on the F-35 is in its final stages, and no, it can't be the backbone of the navy because it's designed to be the 'quantity' rather than 'quality' factor in the airforce. although some aircraft can take on the role of "fighter-bombers", the F-35 is not one of them, it's simply there to fly alongside the 101 million dollar F-22 and take out aerial threats.

IAFpilot
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - May 17th, 2003 at 4:26am

asnamara   Offline
Colonel
mmmhmm
Brisbane, Australia  -  France

Gender: male
Posts: 1180
*****
 
Quote:
about the F-35, there is no Boeing variant, the F-32 lost (although it was far better)


mah zeh!! Shocked
sorry dude, but that's a bunch of bullocks..
F-32 was not better at all, you work for boeing or something?? Grin
 

C152 - C172 - C172RG - C-182 - BE76 - C208
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - May 17th, 2003 at 7:49am

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
I am glad the Boeing one lost for 2 reasons.
1. It was rubbish
2. Boeing do not need the cash the project would have brought in.

The F22 would never have made the backbone of any airforce. At 101 million its too much even for americas defence budget. The JSF project was designed to replace most military fighters in service today. It was designed to be cheap to make (in relation to the F22 anyway) and was to replace the Harrier in its STOVL role. However I do not think that you can build an aircraft that can take over from conventional aircraft and STOVL aircraft at the same time.

The F35 is designed to be a fighter bomber. It would have to be if it was ever going to replace the Harrier. The F22 is simply far too expensive to have in even medium numbers let alone large. That is why the JSF project was borne. To give Britain and America a good all round fighter that is affordable to both nations.
 

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - May 17th, 2003 at 9:11am

Tequila Sunrise   Offline
Colonel
Nunquam non paratus
Glasgow Scotland

Gender: male
Posts: 4149
*****
 
The F-35 can and will be a fighter bomber just like every plane it is replacing Roll Eyes
 

If someone with multiple personality disorder threatens suicide, is it a hostage situation?

Thou shalt maintain thine airspeed lest the ground shalt rise up and smite thee
IP Logged
 
Reply #14 - May 17th, 2003 at 9:39am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
i see little need for the JSF right now or in the future, like someone said up there a little, the navy could spend half the cost on upgrading the harrier and it would still be a perfectly good plane many more years, the tornados are still great planes, and still the only decent low level bombers going today. need something to replace the jaguars though.
personally i think the royal navy should have gone for some F-14's may be a little older, but they are still alot better than the F-18, faster, longer range, able to attack more targets, and a higher payload.
plus they are prob cheaper because of their age. but oh well
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print