Search results

The F-117 really had no competition. When it was developed, there was no basis for stealth technologies and the like. Thus the government didn't want to pay for a direct competition. In fact, much of the F-117's development costs were covered by Lockheed themselves, as move that could have...

Noticeably. And while the possibility of a dogfight cannot be discounted, neither should that possibility drive the acceptance of one fighter which is in every other way inferior to another. Besides, the YF-23 was no slouch in close either. :)

As has been argued several times in past threads, the term dreadn(a/o)ght may be spelled with either an 'a' or an 'o'. So sayeth Webster. :) Heck, even Origin couldn't make up their mind, as the original WCIII variant of the Victory Streak calls the Kilrathi vessel a dreadnaught; but the...

Lockheed and Boeing were also joined by General Dynamics in the work on the YF-22. GD, as we know, built the F-16, arguably the most important export fighter in US history. A further point in this matter is that Northrop was not doing well financially at this point. There MAY have been some...

'Fraid not. Cost was not really an issue, as both aircraft were in the same price range. Where one spent money on certain features, theother saved, and visa versa. For example, the YF-22 uses thrust vectored engine exhausts, but has no significant menas to dispel the heat generated by the...

Sure, I'd be happy to. Let's first look at the characteristics that are traditionally regarded as important for a fighter. The YF-23 was faster, had a better rate of climb, a higher service ceiling, and a larger weapons loadout. The YF-22 was/is more agile, it's only advantage. Now...

You of course refer to the Battle of Midway. However, you overlook that with the exception of that one battle, the Dev was actually a very capable and successful aircraft, albeit obsolete by WWII. It was a "first" in many ways both for the US Navy and naval aviation in general, and even with...

Yes, I did...earlier in the thread. I'm through arguing this point of contention. I have not seen any compelling evidence to sway my way of thinking. I recognize that some others may not share my opinion, and that's fine. Last I checked, that's what these boards are all about. :)

I'm not referrign to troubles. IIRC, there are mentions in the documentation as well as in the game about systems not being completed yet. And there are more systems than just ICIS that are entirely new, the arterial launch system being one important one. Rachel makes a statement fairly early on...

I don't believe any of the ships you mentioned were in experimental stage when we see them. New, yes, but not experimental. They all used tried and true technologies (with the possible exception of the VESUVIUS's armor), and all were fully crewed and prepared for combat. Such was not the case...

Eh, PhOEnix, even. ;)

Interesting. Dictionary.com is precisely where I got my definitions earlier in this thread. dreadnaught n : has big guns all of the same caliber (syn: dreadnought) dreadnought n. : A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more.

True, but in this case, we have no evidence contrary to the historical precedent. Further, the state of the MIDWAY's development in WCP is condusive to "experimental" in the historical sense -- several new systems, on it maiden voyage, not yet fully crewed and operational. The US Navy currently...

:rolleyes: According to Webster's online, either spelling is correct: dreadnaught n : has big guns all of the same caliber (syn: dreadnought) dreadnought n. : A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more. According to Webster's printed dictionary...

Common assumption, but nope.

The W3C Kilrathi dreadnaught had a small flight wing, did it not? I think it could be assumed so; it definitely had a flight deck, since that's where many of us parked to destroy the darned thing.... :)

Hmmm...I must be getting my designations mixed up. I could've sworn that the TIGER'S CLAW was CVS-7. I find it interesting that historically a dreadnaught has been a battleship, but in WC dreadnaught seems to be an offensively-enhanced carrier. You'd think with Chris Roberts's keen interest...

And what is a dreadnaught in WC terms? For all intents and purposes, a carrier with enhanced offensive capabilities. Or, in other words, a STRIKE carrier. :) But it IS still in the testing stage. Sorry, but the X means experimental, even in the case of the MIDWAYs. Of course the...

CV and CVA historically have been pretty much the same thing -- your standard fleet carrier. For example, The ESSEX-class in WWII were designated CVA-x; however, most of the carriers prior to that class's introduction were CV-x. I've always thought of it as a change in the mind-frame of a...

Again, nonsense. US pilots initially train in lesser aircraft in order to hone superior piloting skills. They don't immeidately jump into front-line aircraft with all the bells and whistles. Second, have you any familiarity with Top Gun and the like? These pretigious schools are all about...