Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

Military Aircraft

Discuss the power and design of various military aircraft, past and present.

Recent Happenings

2 days ago

Very tough and effective aircraft. However, the design is getting very old and in need of upgrades.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

2 days ago

So far the performance testing have been a bit troublesome. Not a true "stealth" fighter having some frontal stealth capabilities but if caught in a turn or from behind the stealth aspect greatly diminishes. It lacks some of the capabilities of the wonderful Typhoon fighter as well as the Grippen, Rafale and modern Russian fighters. And as it is made by L.M. the price has ballooned over the quoted initial pre-production price. This is not a cheap aircraft. In my humble opinion the USA has taken a huge step in the wrong direction with this aircraft. We need an air superiority fighter which we appear to have in the super expensive F22. We need a moderate yet capable fighter which we have in the F16. What we don't have is a dedicated attack plane built in large numbers. To my mind the Air Force needs only four main offensive type aircraft. (Transport and specialty aircraft are in a separate bracket) These would be the F22, upgraded F16, A10 and a modernized version of the old A7. I have seen the A7 in action and was very impressed. It has defensive options with chaff and flares. A limited short range air to air capability with fuselage mounted sidewinders. (We used them to chase Russian Bear bombers when our fighters were committed elsewhere.) It carried a wonderful 20mm cannon and a payload of up to 12,000 pounds of bombs/weapons. These aircraft are cheap to build and the radar and engines could be easily upgraded. What we lack on the modern battlefield is large numbers of cheap, effective attack aircraft to provide massive air support for our troops. Instead we are trying to make do with a few helo's and expensive duel role fighter aircraft which cannot be deployed in large enough numbers to be truly effective.... This is one of the reasons we are still in Afghanistan. (8 years now) We have not enough men and aircraft to cover the country and provide the firepower needed to win. Until the military get's away from the idea that a few super expensive planes are the wave of the future we won't be winning any wars anytime soon.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

28 days ago

When the P-38 first entered service it had issues with the wings tearing off or the flaps jamming in a prolonged dive causing the deaths of some pilots. This problem was fixed in later models. It was faster than it's enemy counterparts although not as aerobatic as the enemy fighters in the Pacific. It was referred to as the "Forked Tailed Devil" by the enemy. It had a long range and was heavily armed.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

28 days ago

The workhorse of the Americans in the Pacific theater. It's not pretty but it was tough and dependable. It's speed and ability to absorb damage tipped the odds in it's favor against the Zero fighter. It seems to always be overlooked by most people when the discussion turns to WWII fighters although it was one of the better ones.
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

28 days ago

This plane rates in the top four fighters of WWII right along with the Russian Yak, American P51 and the German FW 190. With fighters of this caliber a lot depended upon the best pilots skill to tip the balance of a dog fight. During WW II my father witnessed a Spitfire at low level being chased down a narrow valley by a Me 109. My father used his vehicle mounted .50 cal machine gun to damage the 109 enough to make the German pilot jump, saving the Spitfire. My dad ran as fast as he could to capture the pilot as the pistols the German pilots wore sold for a pretty penny to the officers serving in the rear. But, by the time he got their the other GI's already had the pilot stripped to his underwear....
votes 3 Helpful / 1 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

29 days ago

I left the Navy just as they replaced our F4 Phantoms with the F/A 18. The Phantoms were old, hard to care for and at times just plain pigs. Yet at the time I was really in love with the plane. It was tough and fast. A "mans" plane. The worst blow came when I heard the Navy was phasing out the attack planes (A6 & A7's) in favor of the duel role aircraft. As good as the Hornet or Super Hornet may be neither can be called an air superiority fighter which the navy needs. Perhaps with the addition of the mythical F35 they will finally have a true fighter and the Hornets will be moved more towards the attack role. I wish the navy had opted for another design but it appears the F35 is either it or nothing. Pretty sad as the reports I am hearing on the performance of the F35 are not encouraging.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

29 days ago

I served on this ship from 1982 through 1985 when it was home ported in Japan. It was commissioned in the 1940's and had an angle deck added later. At 998 feet it was one of the shortest of the carriers in the USN yet it had the largest deck area of any carrier at that time. We only had two catapults but during our Norpac off the Russian coast we outperformed both the Coral Sea and the nuclear Enterprise to win the Battle E award. There was an aura about this ship that was hard to explain. The term "Midway Magic" was due to the special bond the crew had with each other. I have never met a better, more dedicated bunch of people in my entire life. While other carriers had switched over to the F14 Tomcat we continued to operate with the older F4 Phamtoms, A6's and A7's. I was saddened when the Navy replaced the dedicated fighter and attack planes for the duel role concept in the F/A 18's. I am old school and continue to believe that the Navy should have both a dedicated air superiority fighter and cheaper yet effective attack aircraft. The F/A 18 and the later Super Hornet fail to do either well. She was a great ship and I look back on those years as the best of my life. I intend to go to San Diego next year where she is now a museum and renew the bond I felt with her some 24 + years ago. I have no doubt the "Magic" will return.. Thanks to all of you that served aboard this fine ship. You enjoyed, as did I, the experience of serving our country onboard the finest ship ever to sail in the 7th fleet. Michael- (Shellback) OC Division, Air Operations, Air Transfer Office
votes 4 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

29 days ago

A very good, reliable performer. It has been highly upgraded over the years. It is every bit as good in the interceptor and attack roles as the F-16 or F/A-18. It even was used on the French aircraft carrier. It still would be a great choice for smaller countries in the Middle East, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and even Australia. The downside is the cost. They tend to be more expensive than comparable American aircraft.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

30 days ago

No, the claim that the F16 is undefeated is false. The Turks who make the F16 under license got ambitious and tangled with a Greek Mirage 2000 which promptly dropped it like a hot potato. The F16 is a great flyer and has sold well because of the price and the steady supply of parts offered by the United States. But it is not a better aircraft than the Mirage. The Mirage was the first fly by wire aircraft ever produced. It is every bit as capable as the F16 with the sole exception of low level manouvers. In all other aspects the Mirage 2000 meets or exceeds the F16. It is faster, has a little more range, turns tighter at medium and high altitudes, carries smart and dumb weaponry as well as over the horizion fire and forget missiles. Taiwan used one of their Mirages to knock down a drone at close to 78km. So while we are all ga-ga about the F16 let's take into account that they were a cheap/reliable fix for countries that needed an air force. It is a very capable aircraft and from a sales point of view a real winner but in reality there are other aircraft with similar performance.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

30 days ago

In my opinion it will never see combat or at best very limited combat. They are just too costly to chance losing, much as is our B1 and B2 bombers. These super expensive aircraft have already proven more costly to maintain/fly than the old wrecks they are intended to replace. Those that harp on stealth should realize the same thing was said about the Wobbly Gobblin when it first came out. Stealth doesn't stop a bullet as we found out in Serbia. The expensive wreck was promply shipped off to Moscow and I'm sure no expense was spared in figuring out a way around it. Any claim spouted by L.M. is suspect in my book. The F22 currently does have serious issues that need to be addressed. Our aircraft have not really been all that superior to other nations. We just have much better pilots. This has been proven over and over since the 40's. I think this nation would have been much better served with a different design. We tend to think we can win a war just by having the highest tech toys. If that were the case why have we not won a war since WW2? (And no, we didn't win the first Gulf war. We left it half finished as always.) We have evolved into thinking our wars need to be pretty. Pinpoint bombing and stealth. WW2 was won by carpet bombing and millions of men in the field. Now we try to win with high tech and a handfull of troops. Against a determined enemy it doesn't work. Never has and never will.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

View Next Subject: Military Leaders

Top Military Aircraft Reviewers