Search results

  1. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    The planned B model is less noisy and has a longer range. Alas, because of the Oil crisis of 73 never left the designboard, not even achieved prototype stage. Today tech? Supercruise, fully digital control, way less noise, more range, and more passengers. No need for that tilting nose - do that...
  2. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    And see what country started with that legislation and put pressure on other countries to also do it.
  3. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Dassault factory? Too clean to be an airbase.
  4. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    The only US aircraft to carry a nuclear reactor was the NB-36H. The reactor was never actually connected to the engines. The program was canceled in 1958.
  5. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Not really. Both have been designed taking into consideration lower detection by the enemy, without making the sacrifices of a 'pure' stealth aircraft. They were also designed at least two decades after the F-15, so it's no surprise they are better at that.
  6. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Depends on the version/variant. A, B, C, and D yes. E is more like a strike/multirole. EX is what? a missile truck for the F-22/F-35?
  7. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Rafale and Typhoon are more agile, have lower RCS, and IRST, and have Meteor. Unless you go for a heavy 4gen fighter class, and the comparison is the Sukoy 2x/3x family.
  8. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    More or less on pair with the French Rafale. A bit better in A2A, a bit worse in A2G. The 2 best 4.5++ in service.
  9. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    That's the French aviation (research and prototypes) in the 50's.
  10. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Launching a Leduc 0xx.
  11. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

  12. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    That 'just' needs/forces to have people thoroughly clean the piece of the road used by said airplanes. The associated problem is that it adds time between ops. And if you have trees real near - well, good look with that.
  13. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    The principal problem is not the plane - is the support units - refuel, rearm, maintenance, etc - that need to be made mobile/capable of operating in remote areas and relocating fast. With these, almost any modern fighter can do it, without them, no one can.
  14. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Any modern jet fighter can operate (more or less) from roads. If said road is certified to that weight - hint, many good quality roads are, but cheap roads/roads without maintenance are not. They can land (if said road has enough free space on the sides) and take off. But the necessary support...
  15. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
  16. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    But, if only a line of code or a single screw is American, ITAR rules apply...
  17. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Already done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-4C_Triton
  18. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Yeah, in the same role the Global Hawk and Triton.
  19. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    Also, in the days of SR-71, you don't have the kind of high-speed / high-bandwidth data links you see today. The plane needs to RTB and the data is later processed. Take a lot of time, and against high mobile targets is useless. By the time the data is processed, the target is already moved to...
  20. paulobrito

    Warbirds Thread

    And on top of that, orbits are well known and do not change, so is relatively easy to program activity to not be seen by said satellites.
Top