Soldato
Stelly said:
yes , because if we didnt had picked the F16's greece would probably would have less land mass.
Eurofighter
- Thread starter Norbert666
- Start date
yes , because if we didnt had picked the F16's greece would probably would have less land mass.
I'm surprised that no one has said anything about the Aurora project 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/abt.html
Stelly
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/abt.html
Stelly
Soldato
Ex-RoNiN said:
yes , one thing has nothing to do with the other .we paid a higher price for the F16 than for the Eurofighter, does this makes sense?
Permabanned
Anyway. all things aside, good discussion.
I always thought GD was for posts like "My Cat has swallowed my car keys, what should I do?" No offence to anyone of course, but this is the type of discussion I prefer.
I always thought GD was for posts like "My Cat has swallowed my car keys, what should I do?" No offence to anyone of course, but this is the type of discussion I prefer.
Stelly said:I agree with you there... my kind of discussion, really into my miltary of all kinds
Stelly
want to answer my question then. Why bother developiong faster and more manuevourable planes, surely the best and cheapest tactic is develop better weapons and defences. No human can move at mach3 independantly, so its all computers.
Or have they? and also stuck ability in there 2?
ChroniC said:
Rightio...
faster, better, newer, more sophisticated... at the moment, I would say that (and I know that there are a lot of people that might disagree) the JSF will be one of the last manned aircraft to come into production... due to the limting factor of the human body... unless we come up with some way to damped it (See movie stealth)...
If you have a look at the link in the post I did about The Aurora project that might help a little understand what might be coming (just look through the BS in there)
Ok.... if you develop better defences then you develop better planes to go through those defences, or counter the better weapons... when you look at something like the Uk's Tornado and compare it to the F16 you can see why Britian went with the Typhoon as its a lot better the the F16, but the F16 is a lot better the the Tornado in my opinion, but thats because I have always been told that Delta winged aircraft are better then 'swing wing' aircraft'..
Then the USAAF seen the Typhoon and thought, well we need something better, so they went for the Raptor (F22)... and we have swings and roundabouts
Stelly
Last edited:
Permabanned
I for one don't understand your question fully ChroniC?
Sure computers with multiple redundancy help modern Fly By Wire Aircraft to be hyper manoeuvrable, but that does not remove the pilot skill factor in any way. If anything, combat flight has become more and more complicated since seat of your pants flying in WW2, the workload on a pilot is now overwhelming, but the bigger easier to see MFD's on modern Aircraft, coupled with early gen helmet displays help a lot. So I guess, yes, computers help a lot.
Still not sure what your asking?
If you are referring to Mach 3 missiles used against modern Aircraft? Then the actual slower moving Aircraft will be much more manoeuvrable than any slim body missile with little fins, the trick is getting to know when said missile was launched, what kind of missile it was and thus its characteristics ASAP ... and how to best use counter measures and evade it.
And I'm still not sure what you were asking Bud?
In the future ... I'm sure we may well see unmanned Fighter/Bombers, technology is an amazing thing, but I think this kind of technology costs a lot and will do for some time. Right here right now, I reckon no computer can replace a highly trained Human pilots brain, no matter what part of planet Earth he comes from.
Sure computers with multiple redundancy help modern Fly By Wire Aircraft to be hyper manoeuvrable, but that does not remove the pilot skill factor in any way. If anything, combat flight has become more and more complicated since seat of your pants flying in WW2, the workload on a pilot is now overwhelming, but the bigger easier to see MFD's on modern Aircraft, coupled with early gen helmet displays help a lot. So I guess, yes, computers help a lot.
Still not sure what your asking?
If you are referring to Mach 3 missiles used against modern Aircraft? Then the actual slower moving Aircraft will be much more manoeuvrable than any slim body missile with little fins, the trick is getting to know when said missile was launched, what kind of missile it was and thus its characteristics ASAP ... and how to best use counter measures and evade it.
And I'm still not sure what you were asking Bud?
In the future ... I'm sure we may well see unmanned Fighter/Bombers, technology is an amazing thing, but I think this kind of technology costs a lot and will do for some time. Right here right now, I reckon no computer can replace a highly trained Human pilots brain, no matter what part of planet Earth he comes from.
I have to agree with the pointlessness of manned fighters. Or fighters in general. The targeting of most missiles nowadays surely means that most attacks are fired from great distances, and guided by satelite?
I cant see why troops dont move into an area, and just laser target objects?
I suppose they are usefull as a defence against other planes, but we dont seem to be engaging in any major wars that they actaully seem necessary. Last time i checked iraq wasnt sending a squadron of F16's to london.
I cant see why troops dont move into an area, and just laser target objects?
I suppose they are usefull as a defence against other planes, but we dont seem to be engaging in any major wars that they actaully seem necessary. Last time i checked iraq wasnt sending a squadron of F16's to london.
Last edited:
what i was trying to say Mr bulbous is that a bi plane with the ability to not be hit by a missile is surely just affective as a jet who cant be hit by a missile.
If this were the case then the only development u would need to focus on is missile technology and defense.
Of course this would only be effectively true if u could invent something that no one else can.
Maybe im just gibbering crap, and inventing technology that doesnt exist
If this were the case then the only development u would need to focus on is missile technology and defense.
Of course this would only be effectively true if u could invent something that no one else can.
Maybe im just gibbering crap, and inventing technology that doesnt exist
ChroniC said:I have to agree with the pointlessness of manned fighters. Or fighters in general. The targeting of most missiles nowadays surely means that most attacks are fired from great distances, and guided by satelite?
I cant see why troops dont move into an area, and just laser target objects?
I suppose they are usefull as a defence against other planes, but we dont seem to be engaging in any major wars that they actaully seem necessary. Last time i check iraq wasnt send a squadron of F16's to london.
Nah fighters are needed... due to the fact that air superiority is so so so important in modern warfare...
I cant see why troops dont move into an area, and just laser target objects?
How do you think you get the troops into the area in the first place? helicopter normally... and helicopters are only normally used if air superiority has been taken...
Stelly
Permabanned
ChroniC said:
Hmmmm ... Hrrrmmm ... Hmmmm
But a Bi-plane could be hit by a missile, and bought down so much more easier nowadays with less technology than they used to be.
Not knocking you mate, its always good to see fresh reasoning.
Now if you were talking a guns only fight between something like a Pitts Special Aerobatic Bi-Plane and a Typhoon or even SU27 or F16 that were guns only and similar guns that fired only to the same range ... then that would be very interesting indeed, it might just boil down to who had most fuel capability, but I reckon if the Jets couldn't shoot down the Pitts with guns, then they would use their speed to leg it to safety
This is all moot stuff though, this doesn't happen in real life, would make a great movie though, kinda like the Zero splash down in the "Final Countdown" movie by F14's
Indeed that would be hilarious to see, but i ment it really as an example of defense technology over speed and moving.
If i invented a force field for example. why do i need thrust vectoring But im gona shut the hell up now, as im boring myself.
If i invented a force field for example. why do i need thrust vectoring
But im gona shut the hell up now, as im boring myself.Iraklis F.C. said:
It does, because the prices we have seen for the EF are for the EF alone, no weapons, no fuel, no nothing.
The F16 prices include BVR missiles, cruise missiles, and other sophisticated weaponry because we are buying them as mud movers.
Having said that, I doubt we could have gotten more than 12-14 EF for that price.
Yes, taking all this into account it probably still is a little bit over the top, on the other hand though, that has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Fact is, we needed those planes, and we needed them quick.
Does the Eurofighter talk to the Raptor?
It seems a waste of time the rest if the Euro nations having them to be honest because they rarely stick their heads up above the parapet, so it falls to the US and UK to sort things out. There is no way the European states will go to war without the US so unless they are just going to be used for defence it is a waste of time them having them. Which brings me back to me original question.
It seems a waste of time the rest if the Euro nations having them to be honest because they rarely stick their heads up above the parapet, so it falls to the US and UK to sort things out. There is no way the European states will go to war without the US so unless they are just going to be used for defence it is a waste of time them having them. Which brings me back to me original question.