|
|
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997
|
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
|||||||||
| View Poll Results: Which do you think is king of the skies in the last generation of super fighters? | |||
| F-15 Eagle |
   
|
12 | 23.08% |
| F-14 Tomcat (TOP GUN!)(The final countdown) |
  
|
18 | 34.62% |
| F-16 fighting Falcon (Iron Eagle!) |
  
|
8 | 15.38% |
| F-18 Hornet |
  
|
14 | 26.92% |
| Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-08-10, 05:11 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Ocean Warrior
 Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 2,983
Downloads: 102
Uploads: 1
|
 If you really want to move some serious mud just get a few W-41s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb)The problem with the "Jack of all Trades" mentality of the Hornet is that it never truly excels at anything. Sure it means cost savings, but that is not what is being questioned here. Any dedicated interceptor/fighter/etc will stick to that profile and defeat the hornet in that area. Edit: Goldorak you raise a good point. A very good example of a dangerous shift towards quality is the Germans during WW2. Sure they may look nice and perform nicely against small numbers of troops, but eventually, if you throw enough material at them, they'll look the same as that burned out POS that's right next to it. The problem however, is that the States have no true competitors who can try to beat them with Quantity in a realistic fight (save for the PLA).
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threaded Mode