Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TequilaChaser on December 08, 2011, 03:39:30 PM
-
Today, Tom Cruise spoke of possibly doing a sequel to the 1986 movie, "Top Gun"
if they do follow through with doing it, lets hope they do a better job this time around :bolt:
article link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/top-gun-sequel-tom-cruise_n_1136570.html?ref=entertainment
TC
-
:banana: :bolt: :airplane:
-
For now it looks like they are just talking about it. Either way I don't think it will be better than the first.
-
Not really interested if the F14 isn't the featured plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lmy2GIsbKw
-
They could call it "Top Drone"!
-
They could call it "Top Drone"!
:rofl
-
Not really interested if the F14 isn't the featured plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lmy2GIsbKw
What's wrong with the F-18?
-
Nothing wrong with the f18, just much prefer the f14 (aesthetics mostly); and since movies are almost a purely visual experience I would rather see a tomcat zipping around the screen instead of a hornet.
-
Nothing wrong with the f18, just much prefer the f14 (aesthetics mostly); and since movies are almost a purely visual experience I would rather see a tomcat zipping around the screen instead of a hornet.
Oh come on, F-18 looks good.
-
yes it does. tomcat looks better. :D
I know machfly can tell, but for anybody else who reads these later be sure to add the phrases "IMHO" or "just my $.02" to my posts above, to help avoid knoting of panties.
-
Not really interested if the F14 isn't the featured plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lmy2GIsbKw
A whine has been recorded, the waaambulance has been dispatched.
-
Oh come on, F-18 looks sexy.
fixt.
-
Whoo hooo!!! I get a whole wambulace to myself for such a small statement of opinion. score!!! :rock
-
:huh
It's Hollywood, so you know they'll use the F-35... :bhead
As long as there's a sufficiently oily and slo-mo beach volleyball scene, it should be alright. I'll watch just to see the triumphant return of Val Kilmer as Iceman, possibly renamed 'Ice-cream Man'.
Wiley.
-
Whoo hooo!!! I get a whole wambulace to myself for such a small statement of opinion. score!!! :rock
Nothing wrong with the f18, just much prefer the f14 (aesthetics mostly); and since movies are almost a purely visual experience I would rather see a tomcat zipping around the screen instead of a hornet.
Have you even seen the Super Hornet actually zip around yet? Not saying a newer Tomcat would of been less impressive - but you're saying you would turn down letting Jessica Parker sit on your face because you can't have Jessica Alba... WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU MAN! :devil
And on that note, ignore that I'm partial to Jessica Parker myself (and that I also got to play with a 4-month new 70-million dollar F-varient of her this past Sunday before getting to help tug and taxi her 40,000 pound arse off our tarmac, and lighting her up at sunset before sending her home. :neener: :banana: those new fighter engines make this sureal groan (almost a super-fart, lol) when they come to life after sitting cold for a while that can be heard for miles. And in low-light like at sunset, they afterburn white-hot and 50-ft long :rock )
:huh
It's Hollywood, so you know they'll use the F-35... :bhead
As long as there's a sufficiently oily and slo-mo beach volleyball scene, it should be alright. I'll watch just to see the triumphant return of Val Kilmer as Iceman, possibly renamed 'Ice-cream Man'.
Wiley.
It's sad, but you're probabley right, I can only dream they make a Top Gun with F-18s :devil
-
what can i say man? (we need a shoulder shrug smiley) I think the F14 is a better looking plane than the F18, and personally when talking just the F18; I prefer the earlier models to the newer super hornets (back when she still had more curves to her). Aside from video games and simulators I have no stick time in either airframe; and I know that the F18 is a much more capable/flexable plane (she was built to be multi mission capable). Given the choice of riding in a F18 or a F14, the tomcat would win hands down every time for me, it wouldn't even be close.
The closest I have to experience with the F18 is airshows and building the multi-directional optics head for the FLIR pods they strap under the wings, and that job ended a few years ago for me. Tomcat over hornet is just my personal preference. Unfortunately, wiley is probably right and they will use that ugly F35, and instead of "hit the breaks and he'll fly right by!" it will be "put her in hover and he'll fly right by!"
-
and personally when talking just the F18; I prefer the earlier models to the newer super hornets (back when she still had more curves to her).
Agreed
-
Hmm, :confused: don't know how to really respond about it's curves, it's never really had a lot in the way of curves since the begining (but that's why I've always loved her, i'd describe her visual characteristics as "pointy, sharp, rugged and durable with only the right amount of curves in the right places"). I'd argue the newer super hornet has "more curves" because they reworked the aerodynamic properties/performance/size/placement of the engine intakes.... personal opinions being what they are and all. :D
-
I'd argue the newer super hornet has "more curves" because they reworked the aerodynamic properties/performance/size/placement of the engine intakes.... personal opinions being what they are and all. :D
I thought they took away the "Breast Cup" looking intakes from the Super Hornet and made them look more like those of the F-14 &/or F-15 more squared off and larger
the older / 1st generation hornets had the curved looking intakes iirc......... hmmm........
TC
-
Hmm, :confused: don't know how to really respond about it's curves, it's never really had a lot in the way of curves since the begining (but that's why I've always loved her, i'd describe her visual characteristics as "pointy, sharp, rugged and durable with only the right amount of curves in the right places"). I'd argue the newer super hornet has "more curves" because they reworked the aerodynamic properties/performance/size/placement of the engine intakes.... personal opinions being what they are and all. :D
And to me her lack of curves (especially compaired to the tomcat) is what "turns me off" for lack of a better phrase. I feel the same way about the new corvettes and camaros; way too many sharp angles and edges and not enough curves. Don't get me wrong, too curvy is a turn off to (modern VW beetles, and that new Fiat). For me the F14 strikes a good balance between curves and edges and I love her for it. :)
Who wants to start a pool that the main character of the new movie will be the son of tom cruise's charater from the original?
-
I thought they took away the "Breast Cup" looking intakes from the Super Hornet and made them look more like those of the F-14 &/or F-15 more squared off and larger
the older / 1st generation hornets had the curved looking intakes iirc......... hmmm........
TC
You're right.
And I'm sorry, horse face Jessica Parker over Jessica Alba? No wonder you can't see a difference in driving a Hornet or a Tomcat.
-
I thought they took away the "Breast Cup" looking intakes from the Super Hornet and made them look more like those of the F-14 &/or F-15 more squared off and larger
the older / 1st generation hornets had the curved looking intakes iirc......... hmmm........
TC
The "squared" intakes of the F-18 (and I'd assume similar to the F-15) are only square in apearance at the front head-on angle. From that point onward, the intakes are very aerodynamicly honed/curved to fit the shape and aerodynamic properties of the aircraft and powerplants. They're each a mini over-engineered wind tube/tunnel. In comparison, the old intakes on the F-18 were essentialy a stove pipe that was split in half length-wise and slapped onto the rear underside. Yes, they were curved much like any half tube is, but otherwise they were very straight and simple in deisgn and function. At the straight 90-degree side angle, the opening is still kinda squared, but agressively slanted. At any other angle or point you look at the intake design/flow and it is extremely un-boxy or rigid and extensively aerodynamicly engineered.
I would compare them to water slides most similarly these days, even the materials are similar. A few decades ago, a simple straight metal half-tube/pipe and garden hose did the trick and would get the kids going down it all weekend. Nowadays, the standard is some carbon-fiber-composite, fancy wide launches/scoops to start from, a design that curves and gets gradually narrower (and faster for the rider) twords the bottom, variable-rate water dispersion nozzles strategicly places along the entire length... yup, it's a lot like water slides lol, the ones these days are a heckuva lot fancier and have a lot more bells and whistles than the ol' stormwater culverts we'd drag home and jimmy-rig up in our backyards - but they're also a heckuva lot faster, safer and probabley fun too.
-
You're right.
And I'm sorry, horse face Jessica Parker over Jessica Alba? No wonder you can't see a difference in driving a Hornet or a Tomcat.
You know what they say about those with the luxury to be picky and choosey.
-
Top Gun 2 should pull a starbuck.
Jessica Alba.. or Stoya... be the lead role pilot.
Plane? The YF-23 of course.
(http://www.aircraft-list.com/keywords/YF-23/YF-23_1.jpg)
She meets Maverick as an instructor in the academy and after much womanizing attempts she flat out tells him she doesnt date outside her own religion. In revenge he signs her up for some secret mission involving dropping a bomb on bin laden's clone .. or or maybe on one of donald trump's yachts... she meets Iceman's daughter, has a lesbo scene prior to the ejection scene.
All the makings of an Oscar and a classic right there. Hollywood hire me! :rock
-
We already have a songun remake, unfortunately the movie was made in north korea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKuoNhihh4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKuoNhihh4)
/Beware of those mig21's man, those are some deadly 2011 aircraft!
-
The "squared" intakes of the F-18 (and I'd assume similar to the F-15) are only square in apearance at the front head-on angle. From that point onward, the intakes are very aerodynamicly honed/curved to fit the shape and aerodynamic properties of the aircraft and powerplants. They're each a mini over-engineered wind tube/tunnel. In comparison, the old intakes on the F-18 were essentialy a stove pipe
so you are saying that both the regular hornet & the Super hornet , now have the same intake design????
you kind of lost me there, the Super Hornet did not even exist back in the 80's when I was in the Navy as an Aviation machinists ( AD / JetMech )
doesn't really matter..... did they ever convert the F-14 to "fly-by-wire" like the F-18s ........... something else I started thinking of for no apparent reason......... although I doubt they did or would undertake such a huge overhaul .......... how many F-14 squadrons are even left these days, I wonder???
TC
-
The Movie is already in production. In fact, Tom Cruise was just in Pittsburgh filming part of it. In Top Gun 2, he is the instructor.
-
so you are saying that both the regular hornet & the Super hornet , now have the same intake design????
you kind of lost me there, the Super Hornet did not even exist back in the 80's when I was in the Navy as an Aviation machinists ( AD / JetMech )
doesn't really matter..... did they ever convert the F-14 to "fly-by-wire" like the F-18s ........... something else I started thinking of for no apparent reason......... although I doubt they did or would undertake such a huge overhaul .......... how many F-14 squadrons are even left these days, I wonder???
TC
I hope that is sarcasm since the F-14 has been retired since 2006. Only Iran still flys them and that is the sole reason why we destroyed our entire fleet except for 50 frams which went to museums.
-
Worried it will be a 'lets get oiled up and towel flick each other' type movie again
-
But the remaining Migs had bugged out? So---what they turned around? Hal? HAL? What does that mean?
How's that movie mashup? :D
-
I hope that is sarcasm since the F-14 has been retired since 2006. Only Iran still flys them and that is the sole reason why we destroyed our entire fleet except for 50 frams which went to museums.
That reason always smelled fishy to me. The F-14 could do the Superhornets job better when they strapped the LANTIRN on. Suddenly it cost too much to maintain the Bombcats and they had to be chopped up so the Iranians wouldn't get the parts. I wonder why we didn't chop up all our F-4s, F-5s, Hueys, and whatever else they have? Sounds like someone got worried about billions in new Superhornet contracts and paid off the right people.
-
I hope that is sarcasm since the F-14 has been retired since 2006. Only Iran still flys them and that is the sole reason why we destroyed our entire fleet except for 50 frams which went to museums.
no not really, no reason for me to be sarcastic that I can think of
just shows ya that I quit keeping up with all that stuff after my last squadron was decommisioned back in early 00's, one was in 04 the other squadron was in 07..... although if they were all retired, NAS Jax still had a few flying back up through er edit: meant 2007/2008 not 2009........ but that don't surprise me either they still flew F-4's, A-4's, A(E)-6's and S-3's, long after they all supposed to have been retired/mothballed too.......
I knew they were all to be converted over to the 18's eventually, just wasn't aware that took place 1/2 a decade ago, rofl....
TC
-
They have already made one with an F-18 zipping around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKsreHMX3xE&feature=related
-
This thread is useless without pictures.
F-14 Tomcat
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/pain_squadron/Jets/800px-F-14_Tomcat_VF-31_2006.jpg)
Jessica Alba
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o107/mejiaslady/jessica-alba.jpg)
F-18
(http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv59/carmanmole/DADMAC/Starmax%20F18%20Hornet/DSCF4477.jpg)
Jessica Parker
(http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq298/juanpablo_m/Sarah-Jessica-Parker.jpg)
Boom goes the dynamite.
-
IMO a sequel would do nothing but hurt the original.
-
I like the idea, let's face it anything with US Navy jetfighters in it has to be interesting. Easily the best parts of Topgun were the flying sequences. Of course we have CGI these days. We just have to hope they stay true to the original :pray
Of course things have changed, NAS Fallon isn't exactly as charismatic as NAS Miramar in San Diego. The F14s are long gone too.
I wonder too whether they go for more realism or stick to the entertaining but ridiculously inaccurate dog fighting sequences. One thing though, this time having a woman involved will be realistic. Back in '86, no one really bought the idea of Kelly McGillis as an expert in air combat. Now with female fighter pilots it will be easier to plot.
I look forward to it.
-
You really want more of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekXxi9IKZSA
-
No, lots and lots of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz6vq-409Vg
-
so you are saying that both the regular hornet & the Super hornet , now have the same intake design????
you kind of lost me there, the Super Hornet did not even exist back in the 80's when I was in the Navy as an Aviation machinists ( AD / JetMech )
doesn't really matter..... did they ever convert the F-14 to "fly-by-wire" like the F-18s ........... something else I started thinking of for no apparent reason......... although I doubt they did or would undertake such a huge overhaul .......... how many F-14 squadrons are even left these days, I wonder???
TC
At length: Same general design principles and applied practices, but both are different powerplants (F100: 29kLbThrst | F414: 22kLbThrst) mounted to different airframes (F-15 | F-18), and (while you may be able to jimmy-rig one onto the other with enough duct tape and welding gas) they are not interchangable (you might get them to lineup on the engine, but inside each intake are many other inlets and bleeds for a multitude of sensors or necessary systems). Both feature a giant box scoop feeding a tunnel that's made/lined with a low-friction carbon-fiber or poly-carbon material, contouring back along the airframe to the engines and narrowing gradually back along the way in a manner to additionaly increase the thrust/speed of the intake air. Also, throughout the intake is a lot of highly engineered baffling and other inlets to feed intake air to other systems and reduce air turbulence inside the intake itself. You'd have to see them for yourself to truely apreciate the degree of percision engineering that is going into them, it is finite and thurough.
OK, as for the F-14, the Navy hasn't paid anyone to fly her in over half a decade. The last carrier launch took place in late July of 2006 aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (I remember that because she's my favorite carrier in the fleet - some call me Teddy). The F-14's final and last operational flight under U.S operation is cited as taking place "4 October 2006, when an F-14D of VF-31 was ferried from Oceana to Republic Airport on Long Island, NY". About a year after that, the hoopla over Iran getting their hands on any spare parts sitting in the middle of the dessert got modern mediafied and snesationalised, so starting back then (for the record: :furious :O :bhead :mad: *insert-waste-toilet-flush-smiley*) and at the bargain beurocratic cost of $40,000 per airframe, some contractor has already long shredded all but a few historicaly preserved display pieces. :( They're gone. All have been deactivated or transitioned to Super Hornets.
And, now for the salt... you probabley know then that it's actually you guys (Navy mechanics/techs) that nailed the F-14s coffin... well, ok, that's not fair, but you're as equally responcible as the bean-counters and Grumman themselves. The real problem with the F-14 didn't become noticable until the F-18 showed up on the carriers. And this might sound familiar recently in regards with one of the few military forces that tries operating them today, and that's parts, parts, parts, and more MFing spare parts! The F-14 became quickly evident that it was not an ideal candidate for continued carrier operations, period. As a front fighter aircraft in the Navy, you might as well start packing and calling yourself a paperweight. The numbers I heard was like for every two deployed F-14D squadrons on a carrier, you can have three super hornet squadrons deployed onboard (and these are the hornets that are ~25% larger - going back to the older ones, I think they were talking about shoehorning 5 hornet squadrons for ever 3 tomcat squadron shoehorned onboard....), and that's a drasticly signifigant increase in a fleet's projectable force. It's single worst characteristic though was that each one deployed onboard required a healthy stockpile of bulky spare parts for the engines and variable angle wing (just ask Iran what they think of the F-14). In comparison, the largest and bulkiest spare component needing to be stored onboard for the F-18 is a complete engine assembley - the largest F414 for the newest Hornets is still less than 70% the size of an F-14's F110 (again, this is a sign of a flaw/oversight on Grumman's part, as they were advancing development of the tomcat, so they also were advancing the size and mass of the engine and the complexity/size/scale of all its components... yeah... all those variable thrust vector nozzles being proposed for future F-14 varients had the jocks and public fanbase going :x , while the guys milling about under the flight deck and any Navy bean-counter with the intelligence of knowing you can't keep shoving larger and larer round pegs into the smae square hole was :bhead ... and... well, yeah... congrats Boeing (it is the public's money, but remember the Navy is the one signing the check).
This is also in large part with why I'm so estatic and "Yes!, Yes!, Lord-why-didn't-they-think-of-it-sooner Yes!" now with the EA-18G comming onboard to replace the archaic EA-6B Prowlers (besides the fact I was a shameles hornet fan before). It's continueing forward with a strategical move and decision made years ago when they sent the F-14 packing, and if any idea deserves to be half-arse implimented if at all by the Navy then it should definetley not be this one. My position has, I feel, always been on par with the Navy on this one - this has never been a debate/issue/decision about which aircraft is better than the other individualy, but how to at any given moment project the maximum potential capabilities of each individual ship and thus the entire fleet. This was a decision about which aircraft is the wisest choice for the US Navy to decide shoehorning a carrier full of them for repeated long deployments out at sea, and a carrier loaded to the brim with F-18s is 30-40% more capable/powerful than one with F-14s. The F-18 carrier can stay deployed that much longer too because it also has that many more spare parts, spare engines, trained personel, etc..
-
This thread is useless without pictures.
F-14 Tomcat
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/pain_squadron/Jets/800px-F-14_Tomcat_VF-31_2006.jpg)
Jessica Alba
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o107/mejiaslady/jessica-alba.jpg)
F-18
(http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv59/carmanmole/DADMAC/Starmax%20F18%20Hornet/DSCF4477.jpg)
Jessica Parker
(http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq298/juanpablo_m/Sarah-Jessica-Parker.jpg)
Boom goes the dynamite.
I don't see an F-18 in the 3rd picture. I see: some guy, some toy, some field, some crappy road, and an empty sky.
-
Dang it Babalonian! This is the O'club not the aircraft and vehicles section! who said you could bring logic and fact into this thread? :D
BTW, I agree with you that the hornet is a better plane in almost all categories (F14 still looks better :P ). Simply put, the more roles you can fill with the same general airframe the better (especially in a limited space scenario such as CV operations)
-
That reason always smelled fishy to me. The F-14 could do the Superhornets job better when they strapped the LANTIRN on. Suddenly it cost too much to maintain the Bombcats and they had to be chopped up so the Iranians wouldn't get the parts. I wonder why we didn't chop up all our F-4s, F-5s, Hueys, and whatever else they have? Sounds like someone got worried about billions in new Superhornet contracts and paid off the right people.
Easy Slash, you're right to be suspicious, but here's your tinfoil hat back. The biggest misunderstanding here is that the LANTIRN is made to be strapped to all aircraft that don't already come with a built-in radar-assisted low altitude ground avoidance and navigation system. It's nothing more than an accessory that is also deployable on the F-18, F-16, F-15, etc. The real shame here, is people (see: die-hard-fans) ignore the continued shortcommings the F-14 has compared to all the others when they too get a LANTIRN. It's just silly.
As for costs, yes the F-14 cost too much in it's old and outdated form. Now you want to strap on all these pods and gadgets to upgrade it to being able to participate on par with other aircraft? So what happens when, as it was being delegated to mostly bombcat roles, our $40-million outdated airframe laced with an additional $60-million in modern avionics and hardware packages eats a 2-cent WWII-era soviet AAA shell? A $100-million crater. The most technicly advanced, fully electronic warfare equiped, fully combat capable super hornet, fresh off the line (the EA-18G) - $70-million flyaway cost. "Sounds like someone got worried about billions wasted in new Grumman and Lockheed contracts and made a SANE choice." :aok
Oh I'm going to hell, I do enjoy inflating the hornet bubble too much. :devil
Edit: Now yes, I'm in direct disagreement with Advanced Tomcat supporters, in that it is a wiser choice to simpley buy brand spanking new ones able to compete. However, then I must go back to the arguement about maximum projectable fleet power, about the 30-40% gain with the pure Super Hornet decision, and we go back to me steadfastly sticking to my guns on the Super Hornet decision being the best and really only choice when considering economics.
-
This thread is useless without pictures.
F-14 Tomcat
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/pain_squadron/Jets/800px-F-14_Tomcat_VF-31_2006.jpg)
Jessica Alba
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o107/mejiaslady/jessica-alba.jpg)
F-18
(http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv59/carmanmole/DADMAC/Starmax%20F18%20Hornet/DSCF4477.jpg)
Jessica Parker
(http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq298/juanpablo_m/Sarah-Jessica-Parker.jpg)
Boom goes the dynamite.
:rofl :aok
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/F-18-9.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/F-18-8.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/F-18-10.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/F-18-11.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/F-18-13.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/F-18-F5.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/F-18-F2.jpg)
(what's scary, this was my fastest post, less than 60 seconds.... I might have a problem... it's a good one. :D )
Dang it Babalonian! This is the O'club not the aircraft and vehicles section! who said you could bring logic and fact into this thread? :D
BTW, I agree with you that the hornet is a better plane in almost all categories (F14 still looks better :P ). Simply put, the more roles you can fill with the same general airframe the better (especially in a limited space scenario such as CV operations)
Somebody say F-18? :noid
-
This thread is useless without pictures.
Is that you in that picture Melvin?
-
Kind of related: Had a random "What if Goose would have lived?" thread in squad forum and this was Zap's reply. I thought it was pretty much hilarious.
Then the obvious ending would have taken place.
Mav and goose would have tied ice and slider in points, a first for top gun. A 1v1 would be flown to decide the winner. After an epic fight, ice would wax mav and goose. Despite being sad about losing he would bury the hatchet with ice, who admits "cougar would be proud." mav would also be happy with the closure he gets from viper about his father. As mav and goose stand around reflecting upon top gun and wondering what's next, the urgent call comes in to take out some migs. Ice/mav take their friendship to new heights as ice concedes to cover mav's 6. They wipe the skies with the migs and mav becomes an ace in a day. Hollywood still gets shot down because that boner has no SA. Upon returning to the carrier everyone is ecstatic and a celebration ensues, until the mean, bald officer comes in and kills the music. Everyone gets quiet and turns their attention on him. "I can't believe this but, miramar called and they want you on the next transport back." .... "top gun needs some new instructors!" With that said he walks out and a deafening roar erupts from the crowd, while someone flips the music back on. The room spontaneously fills with red, white, and blue confetti as the party resumes. Amidst the chaos the camera pans in on ice and mav who have found each other in the center of the room. Nose to nose they are locked in an intense stare down, their rivalry renewed. Each man takes a step back and they shake hands, simultaneously saying, "it's on!" as the screen fades to black.
Also opens up the door to Top Gun 2! :x
-
Is that you in that picture Melvin?
That is clearly a horses face and not it's posterior.
So no, not me.
-
:rofl No the other picture.
-
Babalonian ( Teddy ) in-depth view
interesting view of it all, Bab
do you work for McDonnell Douglas ( Boeing ) or Northrop or something? or are you in the Navy ( or X- Navy )
just curious as to your knowledge regarding all this......
I agree with the reasons why they got rid of the F-14s and replaced them with F-18's ........ heck look at the time span between when each model became fleet operational ...... and the growth in technology........ they replaced those A-7's with the F-18 as well....... think they were the first to go and be replaced by the hornets....
I agree that we may disagree about some things though.....
I liked the Roosevelt too, it was my last Carrier I got to go out on................. was on the Nimitz before that...... I was on the Roosevelt's first Carrier Ops shake down cruise...... after they fixed the flightdeck problems from the depth charge tests.....
cheers
TC
-
Heya Babs,
The F18 is the sexiest bird and would be a good representation for the movie if it the movie is made. Plus I had the chance to sit in the front seat of one in Okinawa as they did an engine test on one. Do you know what it feels like to have that much power behind ya?? All I can say is... :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
This thread is useless without pictures.
F-14 Tomcat
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/pain_squadron/Jets/800px-F-14_Tomcat_VF-31_2006.jpg)
Jessica Alba
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o107/mejiaslady/jessica-alba.jpg)
F-18
(http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv59/carmanmole/DADMAC/Starmax%20F18%20Hornet/DSCF4477.jpg)
Jessica Parker
(http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq298/juanpablo_m/Sarah-Jessica-Parker.jpg)
Boom goes the dynamite.
:aok
-
the hell with the f18's these birds are sexy. topgun is not like this I will demand my money back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1sgZVGBUw
semp
-
:O Cant believe I missed this thread! Top Gun FTW! :rock
-
Best F14 video EVAH!!! (F14 appears at 3:55 or so)
Bit of trivia, the sound the F14 makes in the dive around 5:46 was in large part mixed from the scream the pilots wife let out when she reviewed that scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyjNInIH4Hw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyjNInIH4Hw)
-
:rofl No the other picture.
No, I haven't been able to fit in a pair of low-rider jeans since I was 20.
Actually, I'm not in any of those pics.
:salute
-
They may not use the F-18 at all...
They may go ugly early.
(http://www.ewallpapers.eu/w_show/f-35c-lightning-ii-1280-1024-4165.jpg)
(http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/F-35-Lightning-II-Joint-Strike-Fighter-B-Variant-28.jpg)
-
Easy Slash, you're right to be suspicious, but here's your tinfoil hat back. The biggest misunderstanding here is that the LANTIRN is made to be strapped to all aircraft that don't already come with a built-in radar-assisted low altitude ground avoidance and navigation system. It's nothing more than an accessory that is also deployable on the F-18, F-16, F-15, etc. The real shame here, is people (see: die-hard-fans) ignore the continued shortcommings the F-14 has compared to all the others when they too get a LANTIRN. It's just silly.
As for costs, yes the F-14 cost too much in it's old and outdated form. Now you want to strap on all these pods and gadgets to upgrade it to being able to participate on par with other aircraft? So what happens when, as it was being delegated to mostly bombcat roles, our $40-million outdated airframe laced with an additional $60-million in modern avionics and hardware packages eats a 2-cent WWII-era soviet AAA shell? A $100-million crater. The most technicly advanced, fully electronic warfare equiped, fully combat capable super hornet, fresh off the line (the EA-18G) - $70-million flyaway cost. "Sounds like someone got worried about billions wasted in new Grumman and Lockheed contracts and made a SANE choice." :aok
Oh I'm going to hell, I do enjoy inflating the hornet bubble too much. :devil
Edit: Now yes, I'm in direct disagreement with Advanced Tomcat supporters, in that it is a wiser choice to simpley buy brand spanking new ones able to compete. However, then I must go back to the arguement about maximum projectable fleet power, about the 30-40% gain with the pure Super Hornet decision, and we go back to me steadfastly sticking to my guns on the Super Hornet decision being the best and really only choice when considering economics.
It's just my opinion based on what I read from and speaking to Tomcat drivers. Not that they would be biased or anythng. :D
-
I know I am way outdated but the F4 will always hold a very special place in my heart. I know they will not use it but no plane has ever move me like thst ugly sexy beast of thrust and contradictions.