No more F-14 Tomcats :(

[mohgui]

Personally I've always had a soft spot for British jets as compared to American jets.

but isn't that the A4-Skyhawk your avatar? i think the only nice looking british jets (IMHO) is the Hawks.

 

[mohgui]

Agree with you totally... from the ground up the Super Hornet is modular in design with lots of computerised modules. So its easy to diagnose and repair. Its also designed for multi mission from ground up... So in all these aspects its a winner. Which is why its being pushed into service over the Tomcat even though upgrading the Tomcat is possible. It'll just be not be that practical.

whatever the differences these two birds have, my fav is still the Hornet.

to please everyone... here's a perfect shot

 

[iria]

Invisible to radar only.... My Canon DSLR can still focus lock... .not to say some other missile locking technology... Just look at the invisible F-117A that got shot down in Kosovo...
http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm
And from the NATO side:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2001/0601stealth_print.html

Ok.. I guess only the Klingon cloaking device is literally an invisible shield...;p

nope the US at area51 is experimenting visual steath.. some thing like the 007 Jame Bond last movie...

too bad i dont rem the site..
i rem this US guys (a local near the area) spook ard the area51 sentry post. He was taunting the security to come out. (there is no one at the sentry post... only camera..

?Then he got arrested and his com confiscate...... later was retured to him i think.

in his site.. there was this story on the dogfight between the f22 and f15.......

 

[iria]

whatever the differences these two birds have, my fav is still the Hornet.

to please everyone... here's a perfect shot

ugly bird....

 

[G-man]

f/a 18.. ... to me it sucks.. it got shoot down more times... in gulf war ..if i rem correctly.

the super hornet.. to mee its sucks also.. its just a stop gap for the next gen navy fighter.. it wont last very long...


currently i feel f22 is the top fighter,,,

super cruise. stealthy. agile.. and even visually very hard to spot during dog fight..
they got "invisible" paint job/technology.. that what a guy spooking near area51 saw...

f15 vs f22...

Er, you do realise that the F/A-18 flew more missions than the F-14 and hence the attrition rate is higher no?

The F-22, now why do you say it's good? It's got a payload of a grand total of 4 AIM-9X or 2 AIM-9X & 2 AIM-120 iirc, since there can be NO pylons externally lest the radar signature gives it away. There's no such thing as invisible paint job as far as the Mk 1 eyeball is concerned and in a close in dogfight, all your thrust vectoring is no better than a Harrier or even Su-37 considering in a dogfight, the one who is slowest wins the fight.

I'm not saying the F-22 sucks but I am not saying it's a God-like aircraft either. EVERY aircraft has an archilles heel and the F-22 is no different. No radar lock, fine, heat signature's still a pretty effective beacon for the good 'ole Archer missile.

 

[G-man]

but isn't that the A4-Skyhawk your avatar? i think the only nice looking british jets (IMHO) is the Hawks.

Yes it's a TUDM Skyhawk. Unless I can get a nice clean shot of a Hunter T Mk.7 or a Lightning, Sea Vixen or Javelin, this'll do for now. The Skyhawk is a most respectable bantam weight strike aircraft.

 

[Zplus]

Er, you do realise that the F/A-18 flew more missions than the F-14 and hence the attrition rate is higher no?

The F-22, now why do you say it's good? It's got a payload of a grand total of 4 AIM-9X or 2 AIM-9X & 2 AIM-120 iirc, since there can be NO pylons externally lest the radar signature gives it away. There's no such thing as invisible paint job as far as the Mk 1 eyeball is concerned and in a close in dogfight, all your thrust vectoring is no better than a Harrier or even Su-37 considering in a dogfight, the one who is slowest wins the fight.

I'm not saying the F-22 sucks but I am not saying it's a God-like aircraft either. EVERY aircraft has an archilles heel and the F-22 is no different. No radar lock, fine, heat signature's still a pretty effective beacon for the good 'ole Archer missile.

Off bore sight and thrust vectoring missles....Ahhhhh!!! Amazing russian tech...
Reminds me of Firefox.... these russians... hahaha

 

[iria]

Er, you do realise that the F/A-18 flew more missions than the F-14 and hence the attrition rate is higher no?

The F-22, now why do you say it's good? It's got a payload of a grand total of 4 AIM-9X or 2 AIM-9X & 2 AIM-120 iirc, since there can be NO pylons externally lest the radar signature gives it away. There's no such thing as invisible paint job as far as the Mk 1 eyeball is concerned and in a close in dogfight, all your thrust vectoring is no better than a Harrier or even Su-37 considering in a dogfight, the one who is slowest wins the fight.

I'm not saying the F-22 sucks but I am not saying it's a God-like aircraft either. EVERY aircraft has an archilles heel and the F-22 is no different. No radar lock, fine, heat signature's still a pretty effective beacon for the good 'ole Archer missile.

agrree
i wont say total invisinble.. though...

reduced visiblitly more likely.. but i do believe the ppl at area 51 is real...

read that they also come out for the soldier , has the similar device.. some camo net like the sniper is using...

 

[G-man]

Er dude the reason for the so-called invisibility is due to the mod-eagle scheme they use. Depending on the type of sky, it can be fooled into thinking you do not see an aircraft that but only for a fleeting split second.

I repeat, there is NO such thing as paint that renders anything invisible to the human eye.

 

[mohgui]

Yes it's a TUDM Skyhawk. Unless I can get a nice clean shot of a Hunter T Mk.7 or a Lightning, Sea Vixen or Javelin, this'll do for now. The Skyhawk is a most respectable bantam weight strike aircraft.

TUDM = Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia? are the A4s still in service there after the purchase of the MiG 29s and F/18s?

 

[mohgui]

Er dude the reason for the so-called invisibility is due to the mod-eagle scheme they use. Depending on the type of sky, it can be fooled into thinking you do not see an aircraft that but only for a fleeting split second.

I repeat, there is NO such thing as paint that renders anything invisible to the human eye.

invisibility will come true in time to come. i've read some scientific journal and some japanese are toying with it.

the concept is simple. ok, here goes... just develop a material with miniatures video cams and displays attach to it. the cams and the displays have to cover every inch of the material. let's say if you wear the material. the video cams at your back will capture the scene behind you and project it to the displays in front and vice-versa.

so, if you look at the person from the front, you'd be looking at projected images of the back. hence, you are looking straight through that person.

like i've mentioned, the concept is simple, but implementation is a bit difficult.

 

[G-man]

TUDM = Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia? are the A4s still in service there after the purchase of the MiG 29s and F/18s?

Yes it's taken at Sungei Besi museum. Not sure if it's still in service but it MIGHT be in the tanker role.

 

[King Tiger]

TUDM = Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia? are the A4s still in service there after the purchase of the MiG 29s and F/18s?

I think so.

 

[Fulcrum]

Yes it's taken at Sungei Besi museum. Not sure if it's still in service but it MIGHT be in the tanker role.

Nope, TUDM has de-commissioned the A-4PTM from the tanker role.

 

[G-man]

Thanks for the headsup, Fulcrum.