Official Aircraft Video Thread

[Anon]

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Looking at this video and thinking about the respective sizes of the Maverick and Javelin warheads, isn't the former overkill in the tank-plinking role?

Just for the record the tank in that vid was filled to the brim with explosives, lol.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by urmomma158

Mav's are more of a multi purpose weapon. Hellfire is already able to take out any tank in existence even with the latest ERA(top attack trajectory,big precursor, 7 inch main warhead).mav's are extreme overkill but they take up too much space and create a lot of drag as well. An aircraft can carry many more hellfires,JCM's, or brimstones than mav's which=more tank kills!!!Mav's are great for taking out fortified structures though.

First of all, no tank is ever likely to be made that will stop an AGM-65 maverick, so any Hog that has a Mav aboard will always have a total overmatch capability, and that's a good thing.

Second of all Mav has much longer range.

Third of all A-10s shoot at a lot more than just Tanks.

The hellfires 20lb HEAT warhead is far from ideal for many of the targets that a Mav is highly effective against.

[HistoricalDavid]

As a general-purpose missile the Maverick is obviously much better, but I'm not proposing replacing it with Hellfire/Brimstone. I just think for the vehicle-destroying role, it's overkill, so I think it would be better to replace some of the Mavericks with dual or triple packed Hellfire/Brimstone. As for the A-10's gun, I think of Shipwreck's 90%-killed-by-Mav comment, or at least I think that's what he said.

As for range, I'm sure a (quick-burning, considering the tight ranges in CAS) booster would significantly extend their range.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Just for the record the tank in that vid was filled to the brim with explosives, lol.

No wonder, I was suspicious that a shoulder-launched missile could atomise it.

PS

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2106058&q=a-10

[Anon]

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

As a general-purpose missile the Maverick is obviously much better, but I'm not proposing replacing it with Hellfire/Brimstone. I just think for the vehicle-destroying role, it's overkill, so I think it would be better to replace some of the Mavericks with dual or triple packed Hellfire/Brimstone. As for the A-10's gun, I think of Shipwreck's 90%-killed-by-Mav comment, or at least I think that's what he said.

90% of all Hog targets are not destroyed with Mavs, you are mis-remembering whatever it was you thought you remembered shipwreck saying.

The Hogs kill a good chunk of their targets with the gun, if for no other reason than it gives the pilots a big ole' hard on when they employ it.

[urmomma158]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

First of all, no tank is ever likely to be made that will stop an AGM-65 maverick, so any Hog that has a Mav aboard will always have a total overmatch capability, and that's a good thing.

Second of all Mav has much longer range.

Third of all A-10s shoot at a lot more than just Tanks.

The hellfires 20lb HEAT warhead is far from ideal for many of the targets that a Mav is highly effective against.

I never said mav wouldn't kill any tank. It can definetly kill any tank even a 200ton tank if it wanted to. I'm saying that as an all around weapon including anti armor mav is best but if you're lokking at a pure anti armor Hellfire,JCM, or Brimstone would be the better option since you can carry many more=more dead tanks. Hellfire and similar misisles don't have to worry about frontal armor since they're top attack missiles and can do it regardless of range. no tank will survive a hellfire( 5 lb100mm diameter precursor,15lb 7 in main, steep angled top attack(almost 90 degrees) regardless of range).

[urmomma158]

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

As a general-purpose missile the Maverick is obviously much better, but I'm not proposing replacing it with Hellfire/Brimstone. I just think for the vehicle-destroying role, it's overkill, so I think it would be better to replace some of the Mavericks with dual or triple packed Hellfire/Brimstone. As for the A-10's gun, I think of Shipwreck's 90%-killed-by-Mav comment, or at least I think that's what he said.

As for range, I'm sure a (quick-burning, considering the tight ranges in CAS) booster would significantly extend their range.



No wonder, I was suspicious that a shoulder-launched missile could atomise it.

PS

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2106058&q=a-10

I agree misisles like the Hellfire will kill any tank in existence(top attack). you can acrry many more hellfires than Mavericks. Maverick is a lot more powerful but asa purem AA weapon it's too powerful. it's a much better multi purpsoe weapon (bunkers,fortified buildings,including armor).

[Canmoore]

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Welcome everyone, to the Official Aircraft Video Thread, the thread for all military / civilian and other aircraft videos.

Check out this breathtaking SR-71 Blackbird video, it totally rocks with the background music. It's divine....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1veE...search=sR%2071

Bahh.. the Avro CF-105 Arrow also capable of Mach-3, as fast than the blackbird, and this was 10 years before the Blackbird!...to bad Diefenbaker was a short sighted lilly liverd *****. And so started the great Canadian brain drain, the scientists who worked on the Arrow would go on to land jobs with NASA, and design the Space Shuttle.

[urmomma158]

here it is the BLU 108!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3nLmE7Kow I even posted a whole thread for it!!

[highsea]

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Bahh.. the Avro CF-105 Arrow also capable of Mach-3, as fast than the blackbird, and this was 10 years before the Blackbird

5 years- the Blackbird was designed in 1958 and first flew in 1962.

Nobody seriously believes that Arrow would have made Mach 3. The Blackbird could reach M3.35, and cruise at M3.2- no way the Arrow would have matched that. M2.5 for short bursts is probably a more realistic estimate for the Arrow-3 with uprated engines. There would have been serious thermal problems at speeds much beyond that, let alone the engine and fuel req's.

It was a great plane, but let's be realistic here...

Originally Posted by Canmoore

And so started the great Canadian brain drain, the scientists who worked on the Arrow would go on to land jobs with NASA, and design the Space Shuttle.

This was quite a while before the shuttle program really took form- the Canadian and British engineers from Avro actually worked on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects.

The prime for the Shuttle was NAA (later Rockwell), and they did work on the Apollo Command and Service Modules, so it's possible that there were still one or two of the Arrow team around, but I don't know for sure- this would have been almost 20 years after the Arrow was cancelled.

[highsea]

Back to aircraft. Here's what happens when your maintenance schedule slips...

http://oobvideo.com/watch.php?pick=744

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Bahh.. the Avro CF-105 Arrow also capable of Mach-3, as fast than the blackbird, and this was 10 years before the Blackbird!...to bad Diefenbaker was a short sighted lilly liverd *****. And so started the great Canadian brain drain, the scientists who worked on the Arrow would go on to land jobs with NASA, and design the Space Shuttle.

Wow, and you probably believe all that crap, dontcha?

LOL...

[Captain Drunk]

The most breathtaking video to the edge of space!

Foxbat

[canoe]

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Bahh.. the Avro CF-105 Arrow also capable of Mach-3, as fast than the blackbird, and this was 10 years before the Blackbird!...to bad Diefenbaker was a short sighted lilly liverd *****. And so started the great Canadian brain drain, the scientists who worked on the Arrow would go on to land jobs with NASA, and design the Space Shuttle.

Ugh, buddy I'm as Canadian as the next guy but that info is not correct. The Avro Arrow was and is an accomplishment. However alot of myths and legends have tended to paint the aircraft having abilities it didn't.

The Arrow was an excellent high speed interceptor at the time. It definately could not maintain cruise at mach 3 however.

[Tronic]

Originally Posted by canoe

Ugh, buddy I'm as Canadian as the next guy but that info is not correct. The Avro Arrow was and is an accomplishment. However alot of myths and legends have tended to paint the aircraft having abilities it didn't.

The Arrow was an excellent high speed interceptor at the time. It definately could not maintain cruise at mach 3 however.

did it even touch Mach 3???

[canoe]

Originally Posted by Tronic

did it even touch Mach 3???

No, the Mk1 and Mk2 versions only made it to mach 2.

There was a purposed varient that could have in theory made it to mach 3 but it never made it past the paper design stage. It would have required a major redesign and strengthening of the origional aircraft.