|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Famous title comes to consoles. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
10-21-2011, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Pope,
I to prefer the F14, and would be all over it like a fly to shit if it were in battlefield 3... but it simply isnt. Hence why i said F18  simply because its its in the game haha.If it had been battlefield 3 1940 then i would of said "spitfire" had it been their. All knowing i prefer the hurricane. I just make do with what im offered  Have to agree though.. AWAY FROM THE CONSOLE F18, the super hornet does seem to have its short coming. What is more worrying though is that the F35 is costing a pretty penny, and were making huge cut backs and savings over here. Were thinking of just scrapping the F35 and saving money by going with the F18 Super Hornet ourselves.... 
|
|
#2
10-21-2011, 12:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually the latest thing I heard is the MOD are seriously looking into the Sea Grippen that Saab are developing right here in the UK. The Grippen has short take off capability so the carrier could keep the ski jump design without an expensive catapult system. The Grippen's a great little plane, I think this is a good backup plan. Saab/Bae Sea Griffin FGR.1 FTW
__________________
 XBL GT: - Robotic Pope HyperLobby CS: - Robot_Pope
|
|
#3
10-21-2011, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting read on the Super Hornet Pope. I knew that it was over weight and over budget, but I thought they had fixed the other problems by spending lotsa money
 FWIW I think my buddy was on the C model when I last talked to him about it. But even though the "Super" Hornet has its problems, I don't think the solution would be another upgrade to the F-14. The Tomcat is big and complicated, requires a lot of maintenance, uses a LOT of fuel, is very un-stealthy and takes up a lot of deck space on the ship. It is however, extremely bad-assed 
Last edited by flynlion; 10-21-2011 at 03:32 PM.
|
|
#4
10-21-2011, 06:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's a fun F-14 'what if' forum thread. http://www.phpbbplanet.com/shipyard/...forum=shipyard
(This is what Ace combat znd JASF should do instead of just throwing in the old retired F14D each new game) The Russians have shown with the Su27 that if you have a great basic aircraft you can modify it in many different ways to suit different roles and keep it at the cutting edge of fighter design. A completely new aircraft design isn't always needed. The F-14 wasn't stealthy but would have been modified to make it less observable on radar. The same thing happened to the Blackburn Buccaneer and it's replacement Panavia Tornado. In many ways the Buccaneer was the better aircraft.
__________________
XBL GT: - Robotic Pope HyperLobby CS: - Robot_Pope
|
|
#5
10-21-2011, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hear ya Pope, but it's easy to speculate about how good a "what if" airplane would have been because they never built it. Who's to say this "Super" Tomcat would have been any better or cheaper than the "Super" Hornet? Sure it might have been, it also could have been a lot worse LoL.
I do love the Buccaneer. Back when I was a current CFI I helped an RAF Buccaneer pilot get his US license. I loved flying with that guy! Pure fun, even in a little single engine Cessna you could tell he was a combat pilot. Last edited by flynlion; 10-21-2011 at 06:57 PM.
|
|
#6
10-21-2011, 07:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I love the Buccaneer too. I often think about 'what if the Tornado never was' updated Buccaneers with all the modern tech and stealth features added (it even already had the intenal weapons bay ) . I'm certain that it would be the best low altitude strike aircraft on the planet
__________________
XBL GT: - Robotic Pope HyperLobby CS: - Robot_Pope Last edited by Robotic Pope; 10-21-2011 at 07:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
