FanBoy2006.01

You wrote a great post. Probably the best one in this whole thread. But my posts are totally my own opinion and yours are cold hard facts, so I did not know how to respond. I think your post realy speaks for itself. Most people probably just nodded in approval without thinking to respond.

Frost1e How dare you accuse me of being a fanbois! ;) P.S. I don't think that if Hitler won the Battle of Britain it would have been a good thing. =4c= Hajduk Veljko If stealth is not as important as you say, why are the Russians trying to develop their own stealth fighter? I read articles in which F15 pilots say that they didn't even detect the F 22's that “shot them down”. A South African fighter pilot (And test pilot for our Grippen program.) seems to be singing the praises for the F 22. AWACS and datalink gives the F 22 “look first” capability (If you ignore it's RWR and it's claimed radar capabilities. As for shooting first. He who shoots first, shoots first.

Ok, I have deleted my post. I apologise to every one that use this forum and to the moderators of it.

Yes, those were huge mistakes. But in the case of Japan the outcome of the war was not clear at that stage. When Hitler shifted his attack from the airfields to London he effectively destroyed Germany's strategy to win air superiority. He should have kept pounding those radar stations as well.....

Britgliderpilot Yes I know that. I never said the USSR didn't have good reason to put IRBM's in Cuba. Like I said before, the military leaders in the USA wanted to launch a. preemptive strike against Cuba but President Kennedy vetoed it. The Six Day War was the direct result of massive weapons buildup by the neighbors of Israel. The Israeli government realized that if they suffered a coordinated attack by their neighbors their chance of survival would be virtually nil. I am paraphrasing the TV documentary, Combat in the Air. What about the Israeli air strike on Osiraq? More importantly I said that it MIGHT LEAD TO WAR. Basically I said stealth technology is a major advantage that cause a shift in the balance of power. And that MIGHT lead to war. OldFrankHog; You are putting words in my mouth. I never said with no reason. I said that if their already is tension an imbalance of power would increase it. Are you guys pulling my leg or what?

No, I am saying that the lack of F 22's in the world might cause war. Here is basically what I am saying: Only the USA has F 22's. So if another country can produce a decent stealth aircraft that is sold throughout the world this will cause a problem for other countries who does not have stealth aircraft. If one look at what happened at the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USA nearly invaded Cuba because the USSR deployed IRBM's on Cuban soil. This posed a major threat to the USA. If the USSR launched nuclear missiles from Cuba on the USA they would have achieved total surprise. This situation was unacceptable to the USA and that led to the standoff that nearly ended in nuclear war. So imagine that Pakistan and India is having a major standoff (Like many times in the past.). But this time India has stealth aircraft that are capable of hitting targets inside Pakistan without any warning. I don't know the particulars of either country's nuclear arsenal. But let us say for instance that Pakistan will only launch nuclear weapons if directly ordered by certain military and government officials. So if India can launch pinpoint strikes on the Pakistani government and communications facilities. (Parliament, Microwave towers, etc) they could paralyze the whole Pakistani government. In such a (I know it is fictitious but it is an example.) scenario Pakistan might decide it is better to launch a preemptive strike on India's airbases that has stealth aircraft (With nukes or whatever.) than to wait for India to decapitate their leadership. Before you say that it is crazy I must point out that apparently the heads of the US military wanted to launch a major strike on Cuba but President Kennedy vetoed the decision. P.S. My original post had very little to do with the F 22! I am just saying, the USA has harnessed stealth technology. One could ignore it (Because it is so expensive.). But if one day your enemy has it; well that might just be the day of your demise.

Gee, from the look of it my thread not only did not take off but cartwheeled and exploded on the runway! Well I guess I am going to have to put in some more posts just to get it to the dire one and a half page prediction of Britgliderpilot. Remember that the first stealth project was launched back in 1945 but was canceled shortly afterwards. I bet it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to develop stealth aircraft today if the world just kept going with the concept. As for a mistake. If Russia (I don't know if they canceled it or not.) develops I stealth fighter in the near future where will it place the Grippen, Eurofighter, etc. Like I said before. Just something that will beat non stealth fighters in BVR combat. It does not need to be the best dogfighter. It does not need supercruise capability (Although that is a huge advantage and then again it seems that the Russians are already developing such engines.). Once again I am not talking about a stealth fighter to counter the F 22. I am talking about a stealth fighter that will be able to beat everybody else. Excluding JSF of course. The USA isn't going to defend everybody with F 22's that are at war. Especially with such a small number of airframes. Just to reiterate: my post is about how stealth technology can upset the balance of power between hostile nations and lead to war. Not about how the F 22 pawns all. I will stand back and leave this smoldering plane wreck now. :(

I must firstly point out that I am usually the last person to find out any thing. So this post is not about any new information, but rather about my opinions. Here are the basic assumptions that I have made in coming to my conclusion: Firstly: The F 22 is similar to other latest generation fighters. What I mean with this is that it is highly agile, has great acceleration, great avionics, etc. I don't want to turn this into an argument about the above stated point. We all know about the advertised capabilities of the F 22 and that it is the best in some categories (Like acceleration, probably radar, etc.). I just wanted to point out that it has similar capabilities. Maybe this is a bit vague but bare with me. Secondly: It has one unique capability that no other 5th generation aircraft has (JSF not yet in service.). That is it's stealth capability. This gives it the capability to engage opposing fighters without their pilots even knowing that they are under attack. Here I also don't want to turn it into an argument about that once the AIM120 goes active the other pilot will detect it, etc. Basically the F 22 has the capability of : “Look first, shoot first.” in nearly all scenarios. Thirdly: American politicians has decided in their wisdom to get only a small number of F 22's in regard to the number that were originally planned for. Pearls of wisdom like, current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are against insurgency so all future wars will be like that and full out conventional warfare is just to terrible to be waged, no one will do that. And my favorite, we Americans fight in coalitions not our enemies. At present the F 22 will also not be on offer for the allies of the USA (Just to damned expensive and and the technology is to sensitive to risk letting it fall into the wrong hands.). This has created the status quo where non stealth 5th generation can function and thrive. Fourthly: Russia is developing a 5th generation stealth fighter to counter the F 22. I don't know if the project is still going on or has been canceled. In my opinion this aircraft does not even need to be a match for the F 22. All it need is the capability of outclassing non stealth 5th generation fighters like Rafael, Grippen, Eurofighter, etc. (Look first, shoot first capability over these aircraft.). In my opinion, such a goal would be achievable (To beat non stealth 5th generation fighters in BVR combat.). Conclusion: The proliferation of such an aircraft in the world (Say in a decade from now.) could upset the balance of power between many nations that are opposed to each other (Like Pakistan and India.) Also, if your cheaper (Than F 22.) stealth aircraft also has a reasonable air-to-ground capability with descent range it could cause even a bigger imbalance of power (The ability to attack tactical and strategic ground targets before they can be engaged by SAM's, other fighters, etc.). In my opinion, if such an scenario plays out in the future, it could lead to major conventional conflicts because such an aircraft would create the impression (Correct or incorrect.) that wars are winnable. Also, if your country is in a serious standoff with a neighboring country and you or they (Or both.) have stealth aircraft that could basically destroy targets without the other party being able to stop them, it could lead to leaders deciding that preemptive strikes are the only option. My conclusion: Countries without the ability to counter stealth technology (Nearly all countries.) in some way or another might find themselves in a dire situation in the future if their enemies have stealth weapons (Fighters, RPV's/UAV's, Cruise missiles, etc.). Thus, in my opinion: The biggest mistake in military aviation history might be that when it became apparent that the USA was developing stealth aircraft, everybody (Including her allies.) didn't follow suit.

Hey. I am not one of the usual suspects around this forum, but I hope that you will be out and about soon. I also hope that there are a lot of beautiful nurses taking care of you! :thumbup:

IguanaKing: I am not sure what Cable Internet is. In South Africa we watch a lot of American TV shows and movies (Blackhawk Down tonight on E-TV.). I hear them talking about Cable TV, but that is all that I know about it (Just that two words.). But the good news is, is that our only land line service provider at present (Telkom) is upgrading their network for the 2010 World Cup Soccer event (That, and there is a second service provider coming soon.). Here is a breakdown of what it costs around here: For my 56k (I can download stuff at 4kbps !) I pay R160 (Approximately $23.) for. That gives me 35 hours a month. I can only go an at 7pm and have to be off at 7am or I have to pay extra. This does not include my normal telephone expenses. ADSL installation costs R437.50 (Approx. $62) once off payment. Then for ADSL (Up to 384kbps) it is R245 per month (Approx. $35) or; ADSL (Up to 512kbps) – R362 p/m (+- $51) or; ADSL (Up to 1024kps [4Mbps trial]) – R516 p/m (+- $73) And of course then you have to pay something like R75 ($11) for 1GB. And that is how you get robbed in broad daylight!:doh: TucksonSonny, I think I should try to immigrate to Belgium!:music_whistling:

Yes Graywo1fg, you have got a good point. Here is the reason that I don't go online: I only have a 56k dial-up connection. I am actually sitting here and staring at my Aztech DSL600EU Router that I had bought a couple of months ago already. But alas I can not presently afford an ADSL service (My financial commitments leave me flat broke.). This is all very ironic because I am a registered reseller and can buy computers and related stuff directly from the suppliers! Imagine being at an all you can eat buffet and not being allowed to eat any thing! :mad: But back to the point. If I had a proper connection I would be online. Who cares if you get shot down the whole time. To me it would be part of the fun to figure out how to survive.

Zuki: "Be afraid.... be very afraid." That desktop picture will haunt my dreams for a long time to come!

Elevator Action (Taito Legends):D

Yes. If it was fired one would expect to see a long streak of fire at the back from the rocket motor. P. S. A supercarier is so full of cameras that if anything happens they will have footage of it. I have seen footage of that huge fire on the Forrestal when a lot of people were killed.

Yeah, I wish LOMAC had a flyable Mirage 2000 (Cockpit and every thing.). I realy like it. MuggyMach3: If you have not visited this site before I do suggest you do. http://www.mirage4fs.com/home.html It is Mirage Aircraft for Flight Simulator. Here is the bad news. You can not shoot anything and you can only fly around. But take a look: there are tons of Mirages for different microsoft flight sim products. I have just been there and just saw a Mirage F1 that I am going to download. http://www.mirage4fs.com/preview14.html

Their was a report in an South African newspaper (In South Africa.) about a guy that went skydiving and whose parachute failed. He survived with only minor injuries. They called it a miracle. The next day the newspaper published an article in which experts said that it was impossible. Um, I think that's why they called it a miracle in the first place. You don't switch on a light and if the lightbulb shines you say: "It's a miracle!"

Yes, your sitting on a thing that has fuel crammed into every available space, with explosives attaced under the wings, you have to fly in nearly any kind of weather and then the other team takes shots at you! But I live in Africa. In 2005 70% of all civilian aircraft accidents took place in Africa. Keep in mind that in that year Africa accounted for only 3% of departures in the world!

Now that everybody is talking about flight accidents; I thought the F16 is the American Fighter with the most accidents.

Well then we agree to disagree (I will stop beating the dead horse now.). But you are absolutely right. The Super Hornet is the winner. OK, now regarding the topic of our opinion about the Tomcat and the Super Hornet: I think that they are both great designs. The Tomcat has proven itself in combat. And I am 100% sure that the Super Hornet will prove itself as a great aircraft in the future, if it has not already.

tflash, actually it was the first link that appeared when I tiped F 14 Tomcat 21!:D I am not an expert on any aircraft nor do I claim to be.

Pilotasso, my reason for that (As stated.): In my opinion, it would be better to compare apples with apples (Proposed Tomcat replacements of which one was chosen.). At the bottom of my post I asked the question: Which aircraft do you think better fills its its role (Tomcat or Super Hornet.)? I thought maybee this would be a better question than just trying to compare an aircraft with the one it replaces. I understand that you say that it is pointless to harp on about something that will never happen. But I disagree. Then we could just as well say that it is pointless to talk about military aviation if you are not somehow involved in it. And if you specifically revered to my post to say that it is like talking about comic-books, then I am very offended. Engineering proposals (Accepted or not.), are about creating something in this world not about total fantacy. I am sad to see the end of the Tomcat but I personally like the Super Hornet. I personally would have liked to see an improved version of the Tomcat in the air today. I guess I am sitting on the fence, but I like both Hornet and Tomcat.

The thread is about the our opinions on the Tomcat and the Super Hornet. So why argue. If we all had the same opinions and had the same knowledge, would there be any point on posting on this forum? As for saying that one should not compare the Super Hornet with the Tomcat 21 and the ASF 14 Tomcat is absurd. All these aircraft were proposals (With the navalised F22.) to replace the current Tomcat fleet. It seems that the US government chose the cheapest bidder in this case (Big surprise here!). So someone could say to me, technically that is not what the topic is about. But neither is arguing till the cows come home! Give your opinion, don't argue about who is wrong and who is right. Here is some info. I got from the net. I don't know how accurate it is (Or if everyone already knows this.). To me it seems that the ASF 14 Tomcat would have been a potent war-machine (Supercruise, 77 degree angle of attack, advanced avionics and the classic Tomcat looks!). Link: http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm Tomcat 21 Tomcat 21 was a more far reaching modification to the F-14D. Using ideas from the Quickstrike proposal Grumman developed the design as a lower cost, multi-role alternative to the NATF. Quickstrike was mainly an avionic and systems upgrade, however to this Tomcat 21 added reshaped wing gloves, which roughly matched the profile of a standard Tomcat glove with the vanes extended. These added around 1,134kg (2,500lb) of fuel. Wing flaps were also to be modified, using a single slotted Fowler type flap. Slats and spoilers were also to be modified. This would have provided 33% extra lift on approach to the carrier, enough to make up for the extra fuel and avionics. The all moving tailplanes would also be enlarged, by extending the trailing edge. With the increased fuel, structural changes and avionics the empty weight of the Tomcat 21 was expected to be only 454kg (1,100lb) than that of the F-14D. Due to the increased fuel capacity gross weight was expected to increase from 33,070kg (72,900lb) to 34,470kg (76,000lb). Like the Quickstrike Tomcat 21 would carry nav-attack FLIRS, either the LANTIRN system or Night Owl pods from Ford Aerospace. Again these would be mounted in the front of the aerodynamic Phoenix fairings (which house the cooling oil system for early model AIM-54's on the F-14A and B. The D does not have this system). The laser designator for the Night Owl system would be carried in the undernose twin pod. In addition to the FLIRS the AN/APG-71 would have been further modified, giving it an ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar) capability, improved look down/shoot down capabilities over land and a 20% increase in target acquisition range. At a time when high cost designs were being killed at a prodigious rate Grumman was quietly confident that the relatively low cost Tomcat 21 would see production. Its anticipated development costs were $989 million, with the first flight in 1993 (if the go ahead was given in 1990). Production models were expected to begin delivery in 1996. 490 Tomcat 21's were projected, a mix of 233 new build (cost $39 million apiece) and 257 remanufactured aircraft from F-14B/D's (cost $21 million apiece). Which FY these prices were calculated for I do not know. Attack Super Tomcat 21 (ASF-14) If the Tomcat 21 was a relatively low cost structural modification to the F-14D then the Attack Super Tomcat 21 (hereafter referred to as AST-21) was the most advanced derivative Grumman could make, both in terms of aerodynamics and avionics. As well as the structural changes mentioned above the AST-21 would have thicker outer wing panels, allowing even more fuel to be carried. Larger external fuel tanks would also be developed. Flaps and slats would be further refined, reducing approach speeds by 18mph. A new version of the F110, the GE F110-GE-129 would power the aircraft, giving the potential for the AST-21 to supercruise (achieve and sustain supersonic flight without need for fuel hungry afterburners) at up to Mach 1.3. Vectoring nozzles were also considered, but felt unnecessary when the design displayed a 77 degree angle of attack without the vectoring nozzles. To aid servicing and repairs all maintenance controls would be grouped onto a single panel. In the cockpit each crew member would receive colour MFD's and helmet mounted displays. A single piece forward canopy would replace the present windscreen, enabling full all round vision for the first time. Carrying the nav-attack FLIRS of the other variants the AST-21 would replace the AN/APG-71 with an electronically scanned unit, incorporating a host of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This would have twice the power of the AN/APG-71 and be among the biggest leaps in capability. Some reports suggest this radar would have been that developed for the A-12. Defensive electronics would also have been upgraded, with the AST-21 carrying 135 packets of chaff/flares in launchers on the LAU-7 missile rails. At present it is unclear whether the ASF-14 differed in any notable way from the AST-21, but the former was the designation used when the Navy carried out a serious study of the Grumman proposals in 1994. Unfortunately for Grumman the study decided the ASF-14 to be unaffordable. As a result the Navy moved ahead with its present plans to develop the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet variants. :cry: --- Here is my last point. Instead of comparing the retired Tomcat with the current Super Hornet would it not be more appropriate to compare the aircraft with the threats it had faced (Tomcat), currently faces and will face (Super Hornet)? During the Cold War Tomcat had to deal with the MiG 23 variants, MiG 29A, Mirage F1, etc. As well as Strategic Bombers and their cruise missiles. The main air threat the Super Hornet will have to be able to counter in the future will come from the latest generation of fighters (JAS 39, Advanced Su 30's and MiG 29's, Typhoon and Rafale) with stand off weapons. Also, it is my understanding that Russia (Home of Eagle Dynamics, Crazy House, Maddox Games and everything nice!) are busy developing even more capable fighters for this current generation. So my question to everyone is: Did the retired Tomcat do its job better that the Super Hornet will do its job?

Better AI. Especially during BVR combat.

ATE is a South African defence company. Now you litterally know as much about them as I do!

VIPER01; ek het gewonder of jy 'n Suid Afrikaner is. Wel ek hoop jy geniet dit in Skotland. Ek is bly om te sien dat hier Suid Afrikaners by die forum is. Toe ek laas fotos van die Rooivalk hier opgesit het, het een van die ouens gekerm daaroor ('n Koeiseun.). Kan jy dit glo!