what prophecy/secret ops fighters can fly in atmosphere?

Not a day goes by, not a day, where I don't have to explain what the roman numeral means...

The 'V' means that the Hellcat is the fifth type of fighter to be called Hellcat. F-86 Hellcat V. The letter after the 86 will be what tells you which model of Hellcat it is -- the F-86A Hellcat V would be the first, and so on and so forth... the Hellcat IV would be a completely different fighter that's entirely unrelated to the Hellcat V.

Arrow seems pretty old -- remember the especially light Arrow in Armada?
 
Originally posted by AzraeL
I imagine some of it would have to do with what weapons work in atmosphere. In WC3 at least, a number of the gun types became ineffective in atmosphere. From memory, the Tachyon worked fine, but the Reaper theoretically didn't.
Click to expand...
The manual stated that the Laser and Meson were quite uneffective in atmosphere, right? And the Ekapshi, an atmospheric fighter, just has Lasers and Mesons. :rolleyes:

And the Armada Arrow rocked! :)

[Edited by Mekt-Hakkikt on 04-27-2001 at 16:22]
 
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
Originally posted by AzraeL
I imagine some of it would have to do with what weapons work in atmosphere. In WC3 at least, a number of the gun types became ineffective in atmosphere. From memory, the Tachyon worked fine, but the Reaper theoretically didn't.
Click to expand...
The manual stated that the Laser and Meson were quite uneffective in atmosphere, right? And the Ekapshi, an atmospheric fighter, just has Lasers and Mesons. :rolleyes:

And the Armada Arrow rocked! :)

[Edited by Mekt-Hakkikt on 04-27-2001 at 16:22]
Click to expand...


yes, it rocked. just before it blew up.
 
It would have to be because its up to you whether you build them and fly them. If they didnt like them they can just bulid a better fighter. So they must have liked them:)
 
Depends on the version of lasers & mesons... WC3's Confed versions weren't as effective in atmospheres.
 
Originally posted by Sonntag
Right, and we shouldn't forget either that the Cobra maneuver is only showing the maximum of a fighters capabilities, if it is able to do this maneuver due to thrust vectoring (as in the Su35), the fighter is also able to turn much better in an ordinary dog fight. So if an engagementgets so far that we have a dog fight (this happened in the gulf war quite some times), we should not underestimate the value of good maneuvering characteristics.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the best place to look for the importance of manouvring is the Falklands war. (Oh that's right, the americans weren't involved in that one :) ).

The Harrier, despite being significantly slower then its opposition (mainly Mirages or similar I think), kicked ass because its thrust vectoring engines and low speed gave it incredible manouvreability.

A missile travelling at speeds well over Mach 2+ generally has a pretty shitty turning circle. If your fighter and do a right-angle turn in mid-air, dodging the missile simply becomes a matter of timing. Being able to sit in mid-air is a feature of limited use (except to demonstrate the raw power of the engines at airshows). Incredible manouvreability - now that is very important.
 
Originally posted by AzraeL
Originally posted by Sonntag
Right, and we shouldn't forget either that the Cobra maneuver is only showing the maximum of a fighters capabilities, if it is able to do this maneuver due to thrust vectoring (as in the Su35), the fighter is also able to turn much better in an ordinary dog fight. So if an engagementgets so far that we have a dog fight (this happened in the gulf war quite some times), we should not underestimate the value of good maneuvering characteristics.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the best place to look for the importance of manouvring is the Falklands war. (Oh that's right, the americans weren't involved in that one :) ).

The Harrier, despite being significantly slower then its opposition (mainly Mirages or similar I think), kicked ass because its thrust vectoring engines and low speed gave it incredible manouvreability.

A missile travelling at speeds well over Mach 2+ generally has a pretty shitty turning circle. If your fighter and do a right-angle turn in mid-air, dodging the missile simply becomes a matter of timing. Being able to sit in mid-air is a feature of limited use (except to demonstrate the raw power of the engines at airshows). Incredible manouvreability - now that is very important.
Click to expand...

the reason harriers were so effective was that the mach2+ enemy jets had to fly a long distance from thier airfields. that ment that they had to conserve fuel or they would run out. which is not a good idea if you get my drift :)
 
Originally posted by AzraeL

Perhaps the best place to look for the importance of manouvring is the Falklands war. (Oh that's right, the americans weren't involved in that one :) ).

The Harrier, despite being significantly slower then its opposition (mainly Mirages or similar I think), kicked ass because its thrust vectoring engines and low speed gave it incredible manouvreability.

A missile travelling at speeds well over Mach 2+ generally has a pretty shitty turning circle. If your fighter and do a right-angle turn in mid-air, dodging the missile simply becomes a matter of timing. Being able to sit in mid-air is a feature of limited use (except to demonstrate the raw power of the engines at airshows). Incredible manouvreability - now that is very important. [/B]
Click to expand...

The US not involved !!!!! :mad:
Who gives the AIM-7 Sidewinder to GB... it wasn´t god,was the US,...... and the satellite photos and other things. And the A4 and Super Etendard of Argentina, Take-off from the continent, a tooooo long strip to the position of the frigates and destroyers of GB, and they only have fuel to drop the bombs (and in the major of times didn´t explode),back agin to the continent, and to finish they don´t have Air-to-Air Missiles, only a few Excocet (Air-to-land), 500 and 250 kg bombs.

[Edited by Ghost on 04-27-2001 at 22:02]
 
Originally posted by Ghost
The US not involved !!!!! :mad:
Who gives the AIM-7 Sidewinder to GB... it wasn´t god,was the US,...... and the satellite photos and other things. And the A4 and Super Etendard of Argentina, Take-off from the continent, a tooooo long strip to the position of the frigates and destroyers of GB, and they only have fuel to drop the bombs (and in the major of times didn´t explode),back agin to the continent, and to finish they don´t have Air-to-Air Missiles, only a few Excocet (Air-to-land), 500 and 250 kg bombs.

[Edited by Ghost on 04-27-2001 at 22:02]
Click to expand...

By that logic, France was also involved in that war, seeing as they were the source of the Mirages, Super Entendards and Exocets. (The Etendard was a French built aircraft, not American.) In the modern world, most countries are linked to each other in some way, but to say that they were involved in a war because of those links is stretching things a bit. The point is that the US was not a *combatant* in that war.

As for air to air combat, there were at least two occassions where Mirage fighters tried to engage Sea Harriers in pure to air comabat, rather than simply as part of a strike mission. In one of those combats, the Sea Harriers were outnumbered three to one, and wisely stayed at low level, where they had the edge. The Angentinian pilots just as wisely refused to engage the the Harriers on their own term, and both sides broke off through lack of fuel without any losses. The other occasion was a two on two dogfight, and resulted with both Mirages being taken down by the Harriers.

As for the Argentinian pilots being short of fuel because of the distance they had to travel, the Argentinians created that problem for themselves. The decision to keep the Mirages on the mainland was a political one, and was made after the "Operation Black Buck" raid by RAF Vulcan bombers (itself the longest lange bombing mission in history) showed that Britain was willing and able to hit the Argentinians on their home ground. The damage done was minimal, but the pyschological effects weren't.

Best, Raptor
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by $tormin
the reason harriers were so effective was that the mach2+ enemy jets had to fly a long distance from thier airfields. that ment that they had to conserve fuel or they would run out. which is not a good idea if you get my drift :)
Click to expand...

The other reason (which often seems to overlooked when comparing the performance of differant fighters) is that the RAF and Fleet Air Arm pilots were significantly better trained and tactically effective than the Argentinians. The man just is as important as the machine.

Best, Raptor
Click to expand...
 
Back to the discussion. can any of the confederations fighters in prophesy or secret ops operate in atmosphere?
 
Originally posted by Raptor
...The decision to keep the Mirages on the mainland was a political one, and was made after the "Operation Black Buck" raid by RAF Vulcan bombers (itself the longest lange bombing mission in history)...
Click to expand...
A record broken since. U.S. B-52s broke it during the Gulf War, when several flew from Louisiana to the Gulf and back, launching cruise missiles on the opening night of the war. And supposedly, that record was broken by B-2 Spirits which reportedly flew a similar mission during the Kosovo incident.
 
Originally posted by Raptor
Originally posted by $tormin
the reason harriers were so effective was that the mach2+ enemy jets had to fly a long distance from thier airfields. that ment that they had to conserve fuel or they would run out. which is not a good idea if you get my drift :)
Click to expand...

The other reason (which often seems to overlooked when comparing the performance of differant fighters) is that the RAF and Fleet Air Arm pilots were significantly better trained and tactically effective than the Argentinians. The man just is as important as the machine.

Best, Raptor
Click to expand...

What you said is right except, that the missiles was selled in the war, not before.......and of course are laws against it (don´t selling armament to any involucred country in a war),and the info that US gives to GB...well.
But i´m no stupid, i know that we lost the war because the GB army was better trained and equiped than ours (you can´t compare a Harrier with a A4 or SE),but our man of the Air Force was the best we had, and aginst greats odds they manage to destroy many frigates and destroyers. (and we had a drunken general as a president) :(
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by $tormin
Back to the discussion. can any of the confederations fighters in prophesy or secret ops operate in atmosphere?
Click to expand...

Well, of course, there isn't any official information...but I doubt it. I mean, they just don't -look- aerodynamic. Maybe the Tigershark, as it's a descendent of the Hellcat, and we know the Hellcat can fly in atmosphere. Plus, it looks vaguely aerodynamic.

Besides that, the Panther and Vampire are probably out best bet, as they have vectored thrust a la the Harrier (there comes that name again :rolleyes: ).

Of course, looking at the sort of stuff in the air today, I feel less qualified to judge. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are working on a JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) to replace the Harrier (and the Boeing looks rather...odd. Different), and recently declassified reports pin the U.S. Air Force as the source of flying saucer rumors. So, I'd have to agree with LOAF, for the most part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top