Pics of F/A-37 Talon (Beautiful carrier based stealth)

globalsecurity.org ^ | 7/26/04

[Poohbah]

Ya had to like the "Sandys", though. Some great flying by the stunt pilots, there.

And beautiful cinematography of their entrance. On Dolby Surround, the sound of high-power radial engine is absolutely gorgeous.

[Long Cut]

Oh, yeah it is. On my 51-inch widescreen with 5-speaker/subwoofer, it's like being there.

And now, my wife told me that before she moves up to where I am, she's going to sell it! I was halfway through "WHAAAA..." when she said, "But then we can buy a BIGGER plasma screen!"

She know how to keep me pacified.

[Poohbah]

And now, my wife told me that before she moves up to where I am, she's going to sell it! I was halfway through "WHAAAA..." when she said, "But then we can buy a BIGGER plasma screen!"

She know how to keep me pacified.

She's obviously the brains of the family (c8

[Darksheare]

IIRC, it was a PopSci article, sorta a "what if" article they did.
There was a document of some type referring to a swing wing stealth tech research/theory, and Popsci did two articles actually.
The more recent one is the one I recall the clearest.
It was the forward swept swing wing design.
They called it "The Switchblade" in the article.
If memory serves right, likely doesn't, the previous swing wing stealth aarticle they did was a conventional rearward swing wing aircraft.
*Phew!*
Long winded tonight.
Think I'll go hunt trolls.

If either of you spark a memory of what I'm babbling about, we'll piece our individual memories of what we've read together.

[Chode]

you sure about the Navy not having internal guns?

i could of sworn that Randy "Duke" Cunningham took down NVN's #1 Ace Toon with his gun for his third kill that day.

[farmfriend]

Something different.

[Oztrich Boy]

Funny. . .but when the title had F/A-37, I was thinking of the A-37. . .a version of the "Tweet," a subsonic trainer aircraft of the USAF (T-37).

Me too

I would think the movies tech reps would have changed the number a bit, as the T-37/REAL A-37 link is too close to the Hollyweird "A-37.".

Don't get me started on JAG's USS Seahawk (CVN-65)

[Gunrunner2]

Yeah. . .me too. You said it. . ."hack writer."

[Gunrunner2]

Bwahahah. . ."Don't get me started on JAG's USS Seahawk (CVN-65)

". . .oh, go on. . .get your motor running. . .

[Long Cut]

I am certain that no Navy F-4s carried an internal gun. Possibly, they had podded ones on some versions, but I can find no reference to any. It's my understanding that all of Duke Cunningham's kills were missile kills.

I'll defer to Pukin Dog's knowledge if it's different, however, but I'm 100% certain at this time.

The Air Force's F-4E was the first AF PHANTOM to carry an internal gun, however.

[Chode]

yup... yer right, my bad. all missle shots. guess my mind's going faster than i thought it was

[antiRepublicrat]

Well, so was landing a Mach-5 interceptor on an ice floe in the first place. FOD, anyone?

I always wondered why they steamed off the ice floe only for the takeoff.

[Long Cut]

Actually, that made a bit of sense. The snow would have helped to slow and stop the aircraft, which by its design looked like one which made a fast landing approach. For takeoff, however, it would have been a big hinderance to acceleration to takeoff speed.

[antiRepublicrat]

The X-29 could certainly maneuver, though. I read that its roll rate approached 720 degrees per second.

I brought up the X-29 only as an example of the advantage of foward-swept wings.

Seems that variable geometry PLUS forward sweep would be a nightmare to build right.

You're probably right. OTOH, all the good stuff about our next generation fighters always seems to center on high-speed flight and radar invisibility, and I'm worried about how well they can dogfight and if the brass isn't going back to it's "technology is everything" approach. Forward-swept designs just seem to be a missed opportunity for close air combat. They probably have built several hundred fighters based on an X-29 for the price of a few of these latest fighters.

But then I guess the Air Force is all about glamour and expensive toys these days. The awesome but ugly and cheap A-10 wasn't sexy enough so they tried to kill it (I've seen them in combat -- WOW!), and I heard they're trying to do away with the cheap but versatile F-16 too.

[antiRepublicrat]

Another flaw in the "long range missile" philosophy was the Vietnam ROE's which forbade pilots from engaging any aircraft that they could not visually identify.

I didn't know that interesting tidbit. Thanks.

[Long Cut]

You know, we are the biggest aircraft/weapons geeks in the world. There have been multiple posts of photos of gorgeous women, and we have virtually ignored them to talk airplanes...including fictional ones.

It must be like the old story of the Dalmatien who loved being a fire-dog so much, he'd leave a bitch in heat to chase a fire siren.

All I can say is ROFLMAO!!!!

[antiRepublicrat]

I've come to accept a certain amount of that sort of bumbling in military-related films.

I watched Broken Arrow with a girlfriend who was also a helicopter crew chief. She laughed when he spun the torque rotor around to hit the other guy. Apparently they're solidly connected by driveshaft and there's no way it would have moved unless the tied-up main rotor was moving.

But I guess that's like me watching computer movies. I just have to turn off that part of my brain if I want to enjoy.

[antiRepublicrat]

Plus, the whole story was based on the real theft, by LT. Viktor Belenko, of a FOXBAT in 1975!

BTW, interesting thing you might like. As I'm sure you know, were really afraid of the Foxbat because if it's claimed high speed, and that it would be able to shoot down SR-71s. But Lt. Belenko showed us that poorly riveted steel piece of junk and told us he was ordered not to go above (IIRC) Mach 1.5 for fear of melting the turbines.

[Long Cut]

There's good reasons on both sides of that debate. Probably the closest we came to ideal was the "High-Low" mix of fighters we had with the F-15C and F-16. You had a great long-range interceptor and a spectacular close combat aircraft.

Trouble is, you have to plan for the future, and we probably reached the limit of human G-tolerance with the F-16. There was nowhere else to go. Plus, enemy missiles and planes were getting better. Close dogfighting in an age of radar, stealth, and missiles really may be coming to an end. I know, I know...we thought that in Vietnam, and just look. However, when was the last time we faced large bunches of opposing fighters in the air? We usually destroy them on the ground and trash their airfields.

Maybe popping them from a safe range, in a flight regime they can't match, while remaining completely undetected is the way to go. Less risk of losing your own. Our newest planes retain good dogfighting capability, however, and it is religiously practiced to the highest possible standards, so maybe we've reached a happy medium.

[antiRepublicrat]

The snow would have helped to slow and stop the aircraft, which by its design looked like one which made a fast landing approach. For takeoff, however, it would have been a big hinderance to acceleration to takeoff speed.

I understand that, but the idea of landing in deep snow at a couple hundred miles an hour, not knowing if there are any bumps or cracks underneath, just sounds kind of suicidal. And kind of hard on the landing gear.