Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sting 11
I think the design needs to have a higher speed (Mach 3+) than the F-14 and a 21st Century sophisticated search and track radar.

You're certainly not going to land that on a 40,000 ton carrier! (see thread) The F-14 has swing wings precisely because to solve the dilema of how to land a Mach 2+ Interceptor on a (super) carrier deck. Ever wonder why the F-15 doesn't have swing wings? The payoff isn't worth the weight penalty.

Give me the range/loiter capability and I'll have the follow-on to the F-14. I don't think we need the speed. There aren't that many Backfire bombers around anymore.

52 posted on 03/24/2005 12:25:55 PM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Tallguy
You're certainly not going to land that on a 40,000 ton carrier! (see thread) The F-14 has swing wings precisely because to solve the dilema of how to land a Mach 2+ Interceptor on a (super) carrier deck. Ever wonder why the F-15 doesn't have swing wings? The payoff isn't worth the weight penalty.

Give me the range/loiter capability and I'll have the follow-on to the F-14. I don't think we need the speed. There aren't that many Backfire bombers around anymore.

My main concern with speed is the ability to have a higher closing rate while intercepting cruise missiles. Now I also think it's probably a mistake to go to a smaller carrier design (maybe they could go with a combined force of a smaller number of CVs and then CVLs?), but I also believe one could design a fighter with a high top speed and excellent low speed characteristics. I don't claim to be an expert, though, so I really don't know.

57 posted on 03/24/2005 12:35:20 PM PST by Sting 11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson