![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Ride Naked.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flat and Straight ND
Moto: 08 BUELL 1125R, 05 SV650S
Posts: 7,916
|
![]()
I want one.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
I give Squids a bad name
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fly Over State
Moto: 1996 CBR600 F3 (AKA the Flying Turd)
Posts: 4,742
|
![]() Quote:
I just remember seeing a F22 chase a F16 one day at work and the F16 left contrails to have the F22 come from behind and basically pass it on the inside without even cutting it off on the exit.
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
The Other White Meat
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Moto: 1997 Cadillac Seville SLS
Posts: 608
|
![]() Quote:
F14 TomCat 1974 - 2006 F15 Eagle 1972 - 2025 (estimated retirement date) F16 Falcon 1976 - 2025 (Est like above) FA18 Hornet 1983 - Unknown Termination Date at this time
__________________
Have you ever wondered if the earth was a mental asylum for people rejected from a planet more sophisticated than ours... www.CheckeredFlagOils.com 954-975-BIKE (2453) 623-850-1OIL (1645) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Serious Business
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
|
![]() Quote:
The F-20 Tigershark was not competitive with the F-16 and more importantly the airframe had limited potential for growth. F-16 is the better airplane and the better buy (even though the first blocks kinda sucked) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | ||
Chaotic Neutral
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Moto: GV1200 Madura, Hawk gt
Posts: 13,992
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
interestingly enough, the iranians reverse engineered the old F5s they had left over from the days of the shah and started building a home grown version thats a cross between the F20 and nothrop/grumman's similar yf-17 cobra. they call it azerkesh |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Chaotic Neutral
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Moto: GV1200 Madura, Hawk gt
Posts: 13,992
|
![]()
compared to Cs no, compared to the failure prone As and Bs yes. and at half the price id argue strongly with your final statement
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
Serious Business
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
|
![]() Quote:
There has NEVER been any serious consideration for a navalized FA\22. The FA18 will be replaced by the F-35. The FA\22 will be replacing the F-15c(air superiority). The F-15E will live on. In summary the FA\22 will replace the worn out c models of the F-15. It is unlikely that they will replace the F-15E. That bird will fly for many more years and be enhanced by armed RPV and drones. It's likely mission for the next 25 years is to fly exercises and maybe a cap over an piece of dirt where lower end aircraft did all the dirty work. By the time it actually sees use justifying the cost it will likely be against a superior aircraft flown by poorly trained pilots. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Serious Business
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
|
![]() Quote:
More power and nicer avionics still can't overcome a limited (and wee) airframe. Especially now with going on 30+ years of service..the F-16 has proved itself to be the better choice. F-20 would not have been able to match what the F-16 airframe has accomplished. It could be a snappy little dogfighter in a clean configuration but a combat aircraft needs to actually carry stuff and find targets to lob that stuff at. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Chaotic Neutral
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Moto: GV1200 Madura, Hawk gt
Posts: 13,992
|
![]()
well it was a helluva lot sexier looking :P
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
kiss my bich behind!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 612
|
![]()
Aaaahhhhh its ok
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|