A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why We Lost The Vietnam War



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #16  
Old January 27th 04, 06:02 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol
aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the
Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned.


Please xplain your reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
While the Nimrod is a fine aircraft the P-3 has had rather
more export success.


Our master of logic enters the fray. The VC10 and Super VC10 was a

superior
plane to the 707, yet the 707 outsold it.


It was far from superior which is why harly anybody except BA bought
the thing and they only did so because the government made them.
There was a famous leaked memo from BOAC requesting a subsidy
because they were having to compete with 707's that were
cheaper to run

Not only were the initial operating costs of the VC-10 higher but
the buried engine design meant that it couldnt use the new
more efficient (and quieter) powerplants that the 707 and
DC-8 were requipped with which meant the aircraft became
increasingly uncompetitve and it could not meet the new
noise restrictions introduced in the 70's and 80's.

The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a
significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of
burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required
re-engineering of the wing roots)


I seriously doubt that any real advantage accrues from this.
Nimrod has a LARGE radar signature.

The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with
engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust
problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long
loitering patrols.

The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can
launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and
presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility.


AMRAAM is highly unlikley


He is gussing now.


No and I'm not guessing either, AMRAAM requires rather more
in the way of system integration than AIM-9 including a suitable
aircraft radar fit to get a lock at BVR

With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF
with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude
performance.


Thats just silly. Nimrod simly doesnt have the payload carrying

capacity.
The RAF used to have a mini B-52 , it was called the Vulcan


You must read what was written.


I didnt, it was full of errors

Keith


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lost comms after radar vector Mike Ciholas Instrument Flight Rules 119 January 31st 04 11:39 PM
All Vietnam Veterans Were Awarded The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 December 1st 03 12:07 AM
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? Mike Military Aviation 7 November 4th 03 11:44 PM
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII Mike Yared Military Aviation 4 October 30th 03 03:09 AM
Attorney honored for heroism during the Vietnam War Otis Willie Military Aviation 6 August 14th 03 11:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.