home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / sci / military / 12712 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-21  |  1.2 KB  |  33 lines
  1. Newsgroups: sci.military
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
  3. From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
  4. Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
  5. Message-ID: <C17vwx.F3r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
  6. Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
  7. Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
  8. References:  <C15ywq.LG6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
  9. Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:21 GMT
  10. Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
  11. Lines: 20
  12.  
  13.  
  14. From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
  15.  
  16. In article <C15ywq.LG6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
  17. Ross Smith <alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz> writes:
  18.  
  19. > Recently I've been reading and thinking about future fighter designs, and
  20. > I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on the subject of V/STOL
  21. > fighters.  I've always agreed with those who argue that anti-airfield
  22. > weapons will sooner or later make horizontal take-off and landing obsolete
  23. > for combat aircraft
  24.  
  25. There's no question that the technology works, the biggest problem I've
  26. seen mentioned is that in the strictly vertical mode, they cannot lift
  27. as much fuel and ordinance as they can with a horizontal takeoff.  So
  28. if they are limited to only vertical takeoffs, their range and/or ammo
  29. will be limited.
  30.  
  31. Corky Scott
  32.  
  33.