On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 What part of on exchange with the USAF don't you get? Canadian pilots flying Canadian built Sabres. What more do you need to know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Canadian pilots flying Canadian built Sabres. What more do you need to know? Flying for the USAF, in Sabres owned by the US Government......what more do you need to know? Again, thank-you for attempting to both confirm my point, well teaching me stuff I already know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Flying for the USAF, in Sabres owned by the US Government......what more do you need to know? Again, thank-you for attempting to both confirm my point, well teaching me stuff I already know Aside from the ineptness of some of your comments, the one I find a bit disrespectful is in your ignorance you dismiss the service of RCAF pilots in Korea. The last air to air was NOT WWII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Aside from the ineptness of some of your comments, the one I find a bit disrespectful is in your ignorance you dismiss the service of RCAF pilots in Korea. The last air to air was NOT WWII. You were wrong. Admit it and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Aside from the ineptness of some of your comments, the one I find a bit disrespectful is in your ignorance you dismiss the service of RCAF pilots in Korea. The last air to air was NOT WWII. How did I dismiss the service of any members of the RCAF?I clearly stated pilots could have served on exchange in Korea...... The last air to air for the RCAF was WW II.........no amount of time you spend on wikipedia will change that......sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 You were wrong. Admit it and move on. On a great many things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 How did I dismiss the service of any members of the RCAF?I clearly stated pilots could have served on exchange in Korea...... The last air to air for the RCAF was WW II.........no amount of time you spend on wikipedia will change that......sorry Really? So those Mig 15's RCAF pilots knocked down in Korea don't COUNT? Now that's what I call disrespectful. Especially as a pilot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Really? So those Mig 15's RCAF pilots knocked down in Korea don't COUNT? Now that's what I call disrespectful. Especially as a pilot. They don't count as a RCAF operation or victory..........no RCAF combat squadrons have Korean war Battle honours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Really? So those Mig 15's RCAF pilots knocked down in Korea don't COUNT? Now that's what I call disrespectful. Especially as a pilot. They don't count when to comes to the rational behind RCAF jet purchases....but the F-35 will be a better dogfighter than the Superhornet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 They don't count when to comes to the rational behind RCAF jet purchases....but the F-35 will be a better dogfighter than the Superhornet. And most other legacy types that carry their stores externally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 They don't count as a RCAF operation or victory..........no RCAF combat squadrons have Korean war Battle honours. Now you're splitting hairs and running for cover. Ever heard of 426 squadron, or do you dismiss them too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 They don't count when to comes to the rational behind RCAF jet purchases....but the F-35 will be a better dogfighter than the Superhornet. Are you kiding? It's too fat, and too slow. I see now they have allowed it to pull all the way up to 3.2 G's. Christ I used to do that in a Citabria in a loop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Now you're splitting hairs and running for cover. Ever heard of 426 squadron, or do you dismiss them too? What about 426 squadron? They, like the rest of the RCAF didn't operate Sabres or any other combat type in Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Are you kiding? It's too fat, and too slow. What's the drag penalty for missiles and fuel carried by a Super Hornet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 What's the drag penalty for missiles and fuel carried by a Super Hornet? Roughly equal to the "fat boy" profile. Which is why it is so slow to achieve SS, which it has just recently been cleard to try again after the last engine fire. And how come if it's so "stealthy" is it so easily trackable from the stern end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Roughly equal to the "fat boy" profile. So you admit that a Super Hornet with weapons and fuel carried externally will be at a disadvantage in terms of maneuverability and speed caused by drag when contrasted to a fighter that carriers its stores internally.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Are you kiding? It's too fat, and too slow. It was designed with the same fighting ability as the F-16 it replaces...and it is faster with a normal weapons load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 So you admit that a Super Hornet with weapons and fuel carried externally will be at a disadvantage in terms of maneuverability and speed caused by drag when contrasted to a fighter that carriers its stores internally.. Nope, not at all. The "fat boy" profile of the 35 is it's problem. That and that huge fan req'd to give enough heat for VSTOL version. Which also makes it hot and noisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Nope, not at all. The "fat boy" profile of the 35 is it's problem. Do you understand how drag works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Do you understand how drag works? Yeah, simply put, it's what opposes thrust. I'm sure you've heard of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Yeah, simply put, it's what opposes thrust. I'm sure you've heard of that? After that you have lift and weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/just-face-it-the-f-35-is-a-bomb-truck# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 The F-35 is a multirole fighter just like the F-16, F-18, Super Hornet, and Rafale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 The F-35 is a multirole fighter just like the F-16, F-18, Super Hornet, and Rafale. It tries to be but it also tries to fulfill roles req'd by 3 different services and it ends up so far not able to fulfill any of those roles well. The SE choice I think is one major mistake LM made. But as I say, to cover it's ass you just need to buy some more LM F 22's. OK, now we have all eggs in one basket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 The F-18 is not an air superiority fighter either.....that's the part of the equation you're missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.