Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 79

Thread: Successful combat proven aircraft

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    West
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hommie
    Its too bad that the Harrier is not supersonic by today's standard, thus the JSF.
    It's a subsonic jet

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    West
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingpin
    Spitfire from the WW2 and a major war horse for the RAF.
    It the same as the Sopwith camel in WW1. The pilot (Cant recall the name) who sat in this plane defeated the Red Baron.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    West
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glennyong
    so now.. actualli what we see is that B2s and F117s of the US will be dominating the skys as the Black Ghosts of the skys.. but the bad point is that, they cant do air-air combat ? since they only carry air to surface precision missles.

    Harrier fighters to me, although not fuel efficient as what someone mentioned. But we should take into considerations of the vertical take offs and other practical capablities of the aircraft possess.

    The aircraft carrier i also a good idea to reduce the amt of airplanes taking off from ground. but if we take singapore into consideration. i believe to my knowledge and experience with navy. the biggest naval base in singapore can only accomodate 1 Us carrier.

    so if singapore were to invest 21million or so onto one aircraft carrier and create 2000 vacancies. the most we can own one, and put all our f-16s on them or maybe singapore can buy some f-14 tomcats to use as supporting / assault aircrafts ?

    since singapore have submarines. what we are now short of in terms of naval capability is Aegis class naval ships. and Aircraft carriers. i believe the MGBs and Corvettes we have now are good enough since they are upgraded constantly.

    the latest aircraft that lockheed is developing for the US Army is kinda cool too ? or was it Boeing or Lockheed that won the contract anyway.. i think its Lockheed rite?

    I dont think Singapore will invest in an aircraft carrier. Yes, it will automatically create jobs about 5000 and the naval base at Changi has facilities to cater to it's needs. But as a small country, we cannot be too aggressive and we have to be sensitive to our neighbours.

  4. #24

    Default

    Still remember the Black Bird? That is my fav!

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glennyong
    The aircraft carrier i also a good idea to reduce the amt of airplanes taking off from ground. but if we take singapore into consideration. i believe to my knowledge and experience with navy. the biggest naval base in singapore can only accomodate 1 Us carrier.

    so if singapore were to invest 21million or so onto one aircraft carrier and create 2000 vacancies. the most we can own one, and put all our f-16s on them or maybe singapore can buy some f-14 tomcats to use as supporting / assault aircrafts ?
    S'pore is not interested in projecting force. that's the purpose of an aircraft carrier, to steam around and act as 1) bully or 2) police man. S'pore does not have enough supporting vessels/aircraft to form a separate carrier battlegroup without leaving the homeland undermanned/eqpted. Replenishment is always a factor, i suppose food can always be bought at port of calls, what about fuel? How is fuel going to reach your battlegroup? Sail it out under escort? Group rtb? Resupply at port-of-call? What if port-of-call refuse to sell? Suck thumb? Anyways, where are you going to sail to... Up the Malacca Straits and give our neighbours a cadiac arrest? South China Sea got PLAN already, Indian Ocean got the Indian Navy. You think they appreciate someone else's carrier group in their backyard? S'pore wants to be friendly, not antagonizing.

    You could suggest keeping the carrier at berth... to which i say, then what's the point? Might as well build a floating landing strip and towing it around to avoid detection (i'm sure there are a multitude of problems with this but just to make a point).

    my reply to topic: Ilyshin Il-4, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, and my personal fav B-17 Flying Fortress

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian
    I dont think Singapore will invest in an aircraft carrier. Yes, it will automatically create jobs about 5000 and the naval base at Changi has facilities to cater to it's needs. But as a small country, we cannot be too aggressive and we have to be sensitive to our neighbours.
    Precisely. I just don't see why Singapore should have an aircraft carrier. We do not have stategic interest like the US.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    La La Land
    Posts
    1,294

    Default

    to get an aircraft carrier means you have to get new planes. currently, i don't think singapore have any planes that are aircraft carrier ready. probably the only planes that are capable are the A4 Skyhawks which is going to retire soon.

    by the way, planes do not come with aircraft carrier right?
    Mythbusters - the bigger the explosion, the better it is.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afbug
    F14s are for defense of the carrier.......
    in what way are they designed for that ?

    actually,

    attack
    defense
    multi-role
    etc...

    what qualities are required ?
    can't they make one that can do all ? since nowaways, first strike = winning the match, can't they just put the advance missles on all those planes ?
    36frames Wedding Photography - http://www.36frames.com
    rueyloon - http://www.rueyloon.com

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingpin
    Spitfire from the WW2 and a major war horse for the RAF.
    but I read somewhere, the hurricane actually managed more kills..... and if you keep the trigger depressed, the spitfire only have about 10 seconds of ammunition.... dunno how true...

    then again, from somewhere else I read, the best plane during WWII was actually a variant of the Zero fighter, but it came too late in the war as had 1 major fault....... if I remember correctly, it is about the fuel injection system, or the lack of it. An allied plane being chased will go into a steep dive, the chaser's plane will stall because of that fault.
    36frames Wedding Photography - http://www.36frames.com
    rueyloon - http://www.rueyloon.com

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afbug
    F14s are for defense of the carrier.......
    in what way are they designed for that ?

    actually,

    attack
    defense
    multi-role
    etc...

    what qualities are required ?
    can't they make one that can do all ? since nowaways, first strike = winning the match, can't they just put the advance missles on all those planes ?
    36frames Wedding Photography - http://www.36frames.com
    rueyloon - http://www.rueyloon.com

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rueyloon
    in what way are they designed for that ?

    actually,

    attack
    defense
    multi-role
    etc...

    what qualities are required ?
    can't they make one that can do all ? since nowaways, first strike = winning the match, can't they just put the advance missles on all those planes ?
    F14 Tomcat - air defense
    F/A18 Hornet - interceptor / attack
    A6 Intruder - all-weather / night attack
    EA6B Prowler - electronic warfare
    E2C Hawkeye -AEW
    S3 Viking - ASW / ASuW

    with the F14s being phased out, the F/A 18 Hornets or the new F/A 18E Super Hornets now take the role of air defense as well.

    different situations require different weapons. there isn't quite a one plane fits all for the US naval aviation yet. besides that, the number of weapon pods are limited.

  12. #32
    Senior Member glennyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,587

    Default

    hmmm... singapore have numerous flotilas of naval ships. however if a carrier were to come into service. chances is most of these flotilas will be used as support to the carrier.

    yah... i also agree having a carrier will boost singapore's firepower which will eventually lead to a arms race. juz like singapore's nuclear capablities talk on the thread not too long ago.

    therefore we should keep our forces small light, and dangerous ? so singapore should develop things to make our forces more efficient ?

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glennyong
    hmmm... singapore have numerous flotilas of naval ships. however if a carrier were to come into service. chances is most of these flotilas will be used as support to the carrier.

    yah... i also agree having a carrier will boost singapore's firepower which will eventually lead to a arms race. juz like singapore's nuclear capablities talk on the thread not too long ago.

    therefore we should keep our forces small light, and dangerous ? so singapore should develop things to make our forces more efficient ?
    it's not the arms race issue. the REALITY is our forces do not need one.

    S'pore's nuclear capabilities? which joker start that discussion. there isn't any place on mainland or offshore islands suitable for a nuclear plant, let alone nuclear weapons. BO LIAO!

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    La La Land
    Posts
    1,294

    Default

    by building a nuclear plant here... singapore is inviting a lot of hostile critiques from within and outside.
    Mythbusters - the bigger the explosion, the better it is.

  15. #35
    Senior Member glennyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    it's not the arms race issue. the REALITY is our forces do not need one.

    S'pore's nuclear capabilities? which joker start that discussion. there isn't any place on mainland or offshore islands suitable for a nuclear plant, let alone nuclear weapons. BO LIAO!
    haha.. go find... i spoke to a LTC on this.. and i wrote my experience there... lol...

    so hahah.. back to fighter planes !! lol !!..... i like P-51 mustangs too... heh... vintage..

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    West
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glennyong
    hmmm... singapore have numerous flotilas of naval ships. however if a carrier were to come into service. chances is most of these flotilas will be used as support to the carrier.

    yah... i also agree having a carrier will boost singapore's firepower which will eventually lead to a arms race. juz like singapore's nuclear capablities talk on the thread not too long ago.

    therefore we should keep our forces small light, and dangerous ? so singapore should develop things to make our forces more efficient ?
    Maybe the entire flotilas will be activated to support 1 aircraft carrier

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    West
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foxtwo
    S'pore is not interested in projecting force. that's the purpose of an aircraft carrier, to steam around and act as 1) bully or 2) police man. S'pore does not have enough supporting vessels/aircraft to form a separate carrier battlegroup without leaving the homeland undermanned/eqpted. Replenishment is always a factor, i suppose food can always be bought at port of calls, what about fuel? How is fuel going to reach your battlegroup? Sail it out under escort? Group rtb? Resupply at port-of-call? What if port-of-call refuse to sell? Suck thumb? Anyways, where are you going to sail to... Up the Malacca Straits and give our neighbours a cadiac arrest? South China Sea got PLAN already, Indian Ocean got the Indian Navy. You think they appreciate someone else's carrier group in their backyard? S'pore wants to be friendly, not antagonizing.

    You could suggest keeping the carrier at berth... to which i say, then what's the point? Might as well build a floating landing strip and towing it around to avoid detection (i'm sure there are a multitude of problems with this but just to make a point).

    my reply to topic: Ilyshin Il-4, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, and my personal fav B-17 Flying Fortress
    There 2 type of carrier
    1) Nuclear (CVN) - Unlimited power source for 30 years. After that, the fuel rods needs to be replaced.
    2) Diesel (CV) - Limited distance. That why a oil refueler accompanies the carrier fleet.

  18. #38
    Senior Member glennyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian
    Maybe the entire flotilas will be activated to support 1 aircraft carrier
    yah... thats true.. but singapore's flotilas is not small either... lol...

    but why are moving into NAvY liao !!!!!!!!!!

    BACK TO AIRPOWER !!!

  19. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    West
    Posts
    253

    Default

    I think let's get back to the topic...enough of Nuclear stuff.

    F-117, design and build in the 80's. Well kept secret until the Panama War against a dictator in Panama. 100% successful and accurate bomb runs. Not to mention saw action Gulf war and Bosnia.

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    West
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rueyloon
    but I read somewhere, the hurricane actually managed more kills..... and if you keep the trigger depressed, the spitfire only have about 10 seconds of ammunition.... dunno how true...

    then again, from somewhere else I read, the best plane during WWII was actually a variant of the Zero fighter, but it came too late in the war as had 1 major fault....... if I remember correctly, it is about the fuel injection system, or the lack of it. An allied plane being chased will go into a steep dive, the chaser's plane will stall because of that fault.

    I think you maybe referring to spitfire vs FW-109 in vertical dive.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •