"The low-cost fighters to serve tomorrow’s air forces" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion (1946-2011) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleCould artificial intelligence take a photo of an unpainted figure and produce a 'painted' result?
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 22 Jan 2016 9:56 p.m. PST |
A little old… but an still interesting article… "At this summer's Farnborough Air Show in England, the talk was dominated by the mishaps of one plane: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. Due to be adopted by major air forces in the decades to come, it was supposed to be the star of the show. But in the end, the $100 USDm-a-unit jet failed to turn up to its coming-out party after an engine fire in one of the production models grounded the fleet. But another new jet fighter, which had taken less than two years to design, build and fly, did make it to Farnborough. The Textron Scorpion costs $20 USDm, still not exactly a bargain by most people's standards, but a fifth of the cost of the F-35. It suggests that not every advanced defence project has to necessarily come in years late and billions over budget – and points to a new twist in not only the future of fighter-jet design, but also in more humanitarian roles that a budget jet could carry out…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Fatman | 22 Jan 2016 10:34 p.m. PST |
Anybody remember the F-20 Tigershark? Fatman |
GarrisonMiniatures | 23 Jan 2016 3:04 a.m. PST |
The idea of a plane that can act in a dual role as an advanced trainer and low cost supplement to the main combat force has always made sense. Look at the British Hawk trainer – perhaps a concept underused by the major western powers. 'The Hawk is designed to carry a centreline gun pod, such as the 30 mm ADEN cannon, two under-wing pylons, and up to four hardpoints for fitting armaments and equipment.[4] In RAF service, Hawks have been equipped to operate of Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. In the early 1990s, British Aerospace investigated the possibility of arming the Hawk with the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile for export customers.[32]' link |
paulgenna | 23 Jan 2016 9:16 a.m. PST |
The F-35 is going to destroy NATO's budget. The plan has no cannon as of yet and every dog fight it has been has been a loss. We would be better off with additional F-15 and F-16 aircraft and use some of the savings for F-22's. The only people who want the F-35 are the politicians. |
Generalstoner49 | 23 Jan 2016 10:18 a.m. PST |
Fatman I remember the F-20 Tigershark! Odd to think an upgrade F-5 was as good as it was. Just too expensive for the time and not enough political backing to make a push against the F-16. I get the feeling that the US Airforce brass is silently thanking their lucky stars that countries want the F-15SE to keep the line up and running. |
Vigilant | 23 Jan 2016 11:33 a.m. PST |
The British military got rid of the Harrier, but continued to build aircraft carriers which will have no aircraft until F35 is ready, by which time we won't be able to afford them. Brilliant planning. Still we also have a leader of the opposition who thinks that building ballistic missile submarines but not having warheads for them is a good idea. Perhaps we should just scrap our military and replace it with a big white flag! |
Lion in the Stars | 23 Jan 2016 12:51 p.m. PST |
@Vigilant: a 250+kg re-entry body hitting the target at 10km/s makes a pretty impressive boom even without a nuclear warhead. The trick is to assure everyone else in the world that the missile coming from the middle of the ocean isn't nuclear-armed. |
|