CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:26 am
 


OPP
$1:
JAS 39 Gripen


A remarkable landmark utilization of canards. These canards were adopted by the Isreali KFIR (a much improve Mirage).

The major problem with the Gripen is it's aracaic delta wing, massive weight.

For a large aircraft it is remarkably agile but a dog-fighter it isn't.

Much like the Avro Arrow, it is a remarkable achevement for a rather small country. Like the arrow circumstances have left us with no real concept as to it's operational effectiveness. Like the Arrow it has never had to pass the test of combat.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 4575
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:45 am
 


sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
For a large aircraft it is remarkably agile but a dog-fighter it isn't.


I thought the days of dog-fighting was over?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:52 am
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
Bart: Was that a Clancy-ism?


I don't think Clancy ever wrote about South Africa - correct me if I'm wrong, but Irecall he only wrote about Africa in Debt of Honor.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:00 am
 


sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
OPP
$1:
JAS 39 Gripen


A remarkable landmark utilization of canards. These canards were adopted by the Isreali KFIR (a much improve Mirage).

The major problem with the Gripen is it's aracaic delta wing, massive weight.

For a large aircraft it is remarkably agile but a dog-fighter it isn't.

Much like the Avro Arrow, it is a remarkable achevement for a rather small country. Like the arrow circumstances have left us with no real concept as to it's operational effectiveness. Like the Arrow it has never had to pass the test of combat.


The Avro Arrow was never meant for combat as a dogfighter, it was an interceptor, which means that all it had to do was rapidly and effectively respond to and destroy Soviet bombers coming over the North Pole. It would carry missiles, find its targets far away, and blow them to bits over the desolate Arctic Archipelago. It wasn't ever designed for or was intended for the purposes of what your saw in Top Gun.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:02 am
 


OPP OPP:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
For a large aircraft it is remarkably agile but a dog-fighter it isn't.


I thought the days of dog-fighting was over?


Every time someone (usually a politician on a military appropriations committee) thinks the days of dogfights are over the first thing that happens are more dogfights.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 4575
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:06 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
OPP OPP:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
For a large aircraft it is remarkably agile but a dog-fighter it isn't.


I thought the days of dog-fighting was over?


Every time someone (usually a politician on a military appropriations committee) thinks the days of dogfights are over the first thing that happens are more dogfights.

I meant through technical advances which made that way of fighting obsolete.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:13 am
 


OPP OPP:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
OPP OPP:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
For a large aircraft it is remarkably agile but a dog-fighter it isn't.


I thought the days of dog-fighting was over?


Every time someone (usually a politician on a military appropriations committee) thinks the days of dogfights are over the first thing that happens are more dogfights.

I meant through technical advances which made that way of fighting obsolete.


There will always be a need for guns and short-range missiles on fighters and the principle reason would be a dogfight. The secondary reason would be close in ground support.

Long range missiles are wonderful, but when someone gets clever and is on your six and all you have are missiles that require 30km of separation to be effective then your family will be getting a visit from two officers and a chaplain.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:07 am
 


Just prior to WW2, the RAF doctrine was based upon the notion that super fast fighters such as the Hurricane made Dog-fighting obsolete.

One of the alleged motives for cancelling the ARROW was the notion that manned fighters were obsolete. A valid reason for cancelling the ARROW was that both the proposed missiles and firecontrol systems were just not happening.

During those heady times of the '50, the "experts" also decreeded that the days of the MBT were over...that the life expectancy of a MBT was about 2 minutes.........

That thinking arose again, in the time of BOOB McNamara. US Navy F4 Phantoms showed up over N Viet Nam with no guns and became immediately became victims of gun-armed, obsolete, MiG 17's.

Actually currently, despite IFF, it is frequently necessary (politically) to visually identify the target. In visual range a 100mile range phoenix is little help......guns are obligatory.

MBT still largely rule the modern battlefield. Like everything else they are faster, deadlier, and more survivable-----and like aircraft come at a hidious price.

Most modern military research is directed towards AA (anti-air and air to air) and anti-armour.

The best fire control system yet is a man and the only "fire and forget" weapon is a gun.

Despite all these advances the only way to occupy ground is still boots on the ground.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:20 am
 


sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

One of the alleged motives for cancelling the ARROW was the notion that manned fighters were obsolete. A valid reason for cancelling the ARROW was that both the proposed missiles and firecontrol systems were just not happening.
.


Correction: one of the reasons (not "alleged") that the Arrow was canceled was the contemporary notion that "interceptors" were dead as the ICBM era was being ushered in.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:35 am
 


sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

The best fire control system yet is a man and the only "fire and forget" weapon is a gun.

Despite all these advances the only way to occupy ground is still boots on the ground.


R=UP


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:35 am
 


Mustang1

$1:
$1:
sasquatch2 wrote:
One of the alleged motives for cancelling the ARROW was the notion that manned fighters were obsolete. A valid reason for cancelling the ARROW was that both the proposed missiles and fire control systems were just not happening.

Correction: one of the reasons (not "alleged") that the Arrow was canceled was the contemporary notion that "interceptors" were dead as the ICBM era was being ushered in.


There is a vast difference between "one motive" and 'THE MOTIVE".

Perhaps you should redirect your vast intellect to reading comprehension. Some of your post indicate you should direct some of your time from surfing porn sites, before you get caught with socially unacceptable files on your computer.

The Bomarc was an anti-aircraft weapon system---not anti-ICBM.

An interesting afterthough is that the soviets proceeded to develope the intercontinental "Backfire" bomber.

Yet another example of arm-chair warriors (especially politicians) miscalculating obsolecence in weapons/warfare.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:51 am
 


sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

There is a vast difference between "one motive" and 'THE MOTIVE".
.


I took notice of your inclusion of “alleged” and commented on its inaccuracies. Please learn how to read.

$1:

Perhaps you should redirect your vast intellect to reading comprehension. Some of your post indicate you should direct some of your time from surfing porn sites, before you get caught with socially unacceptable files on your computer.”


Is that Trucker humor, Jack Burton? Sorry, I don’t speak “fucktardese” but I’ll try and wade through you mangled mush anyway. Firstly, my comments regarding the Arrow were correct, and you, breaker, breaker, have offered nothing but pleb jokes in response. Please stay away from history, heck, stay away from anything intellectual as all you seem to do is whine, cry and run like a like a 10 year old that ate a dodgeball at recess.

$1:
“The Bomarc was an anti-aircraft weapon system---not anti-ICBM”


Point? You realize that the cancellation motive behind the Arrow was far more complex than simply one reason (the Arrow, as did other aircraft, got caught up in that thinking as manned interceptors were seen as dead). Read up on the plane.

This is where you go run and cry in a corner.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:17 pm
 


It's sort of ironic that the beyond visual range missiles that may have ended dogfighting have evolved into the UAVCs that again will render manned fighters obsolete. The "white scarf" boys can pontificate all they want but I'd bet the US will have unmanned fighters in the next 10 years. Once the software is perfected, the only thing holding them back will be the political will to use them.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4615
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:32 pm
 


$1:
It's sort of ironic that the beyond visual range missiles that may have ended dogfighting have evolved into the UAVCs that again will render manned fighters obsolete. The "white scarf" boys can pontificate all they want but I'd bet the US will have unmanned fighters in the next 10 years. Once the software is perfected, the only thing holding them back will be the political will to use them.


It isn't really much of a step in terms of will as you put it. We already can kill thousands of people great distances away. Having an aircraft fly around without a traditional pilot per say is not much different than launching a unmanned missile at something or some one to me.

Although it would probably be easier if we just made a circle and picked one of our best guys and our enemy picked theirs then whoever can push the other out of the circle would win the war. It would be a lot cheaper anyway.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:52 pm
 


Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Although it would probably be easier if we just made a circle and picked one of our best guys and our enemy picked theirs then whoever can push the other out of the circle would win the war. It would be a lot cheaper anyway.


But blowing stuff up is so much more satisfying. :wink:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.