BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bedwyr on 24 July 2017, 08:45:15
-
Carry on all.
-
Regarding Rowan Atkinson and the BAE Comic Relief sketch, just casually lean over and stop it before it gets to that part. It's at the end anyways.
-
Dang, I missed creating the new thread. I was gonna call it Aviation Pictures: The Three-Point Landing.
-
Dang, I missed creating the new thread. I was gonna call it Aviation Pictures: The Three-Point Landing.
Kind of funny as it wasn't until my tailwheel checkout that I understood what a three-point landing actually was. I'd keep thinking about tricycle gear and wondering how you actually *do* that.
Bonus quiz question: I've done a one-point landing. How in the world did I do that?
-
Well if you don't count the wings or fuselage or cockpit as points...
-
Well if you don't count the wings or fuselage or cockpit as points...
Well, no, I don't. But nope. Try again.
-
Bonus quiz question: I've done a one-point landing. How in the world did I do that?
Water landing in a flying boat? The hull would kinda count as one "point" wouldn't it? Whereas a pontoon type like a Beaver would be a two-point water landing?
-
Water landing in a flying boat? The hull would kinda count as one "point" wouldn't it? Whereas a pontoon type like a Beaver would be a two-point water landing?
I should let it go since I just realized that I was contradicting myself.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Landing.Glider_%22Grob%22G-103A_Twin_astir._%289383156495%29.jpg)
Many gliders have only two wheels, the main gear and a single tailwheel. It's perfectly common to touch down on the main gear (akin to a wheel landing in a tailwheel plane but with one instead of two") and ride that wheel until the wings run out of lift... which happens at about a fast walking pace. However, it occured to me that I might be yanking your chains since you'd naturally be thinking of only aircraft construction instead of techniques too.
-
Dang. I was about to guess zeppelin landing hook.
-
interesting fact, bcause of the design of the U-2, it had to be landed like a glider, on a belly wheel then allowed to grind to a halt.
(https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jan/23/2000881941/-1/-1/0/140122-F-CY182-366.JPG)
-
And playing with flares is even more fun if you do it with a friend:
https://youtu.be/LQkehCeBBOY (https://youtu.be/LQkehCeBBOY)
-
Feenix74, I thought you won the last thread. Well timed post in celebration of its end.
-
I was thinking of parasite fighters.
-
Another glider image. The loverly Stemme S12
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/66/6d/d0/666dd05638f1c8c2c1c3ac5410a3a5ca.jpg)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKzf0WZG_U
-
Gliding is a lot of fun (the view is spectacular and you can feel the serenity), although a glider with an engine is sort of cheating >:D
-
When a daddy C-17 loves a mummy C-17, then a baby C-17 (aka KC-390) is born ;)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD1O5w3XUAAHSpm.jpg)
Embraer's KC-390 tactical transport and air-to-air refueller that is currently undertaking flight testing with deliver the first production aircraft to the Brazilian air force next year.
-
Gliding is a lot of fun (the view is spectacular and you can feel the serenity), although a glider with an engine is sort of cheating >:D
I've been up in a glider for a grand total of ~20 minutes ("Try flying" day at local airport). It was enough to make the instructor a bit irritated when he let me take the controls and I showed that I knew how to find and use a thermal - we weren't supposed to stay up longer! ;D
-
Japan's C-2 looks just like a C-17 with just 2 engines. 2 767 sized engines vs 4 757 engines.
-
MIG-35, a MIG-29 upgrade, because "-35" these days seems to be treated like some kind of branding mark of excellence it seems ::)
(https://s2.postimg.org/js2bmecll/mig-35_01.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/6f46bx1jz/mig_35.jpg)
-
And sadly but NOT tragically, a perfect one-point landing in a Supermarine Spitfire after a gear failure.
https://youtu.be/FbkFeaO-bDg (https://youtu.be/FbkFeaO-bDg)
-
As one point landings go, that one was just about perfect.
-
At least it was only a replica Spitfire.
Any landing that you walk away from is a good landing O0
-
As one point landings go, that one was just about perfect.
Yep
Walk away, fix it tomorrow, should be airworthy again soon
-
Gliding is a lot of fun (the view is spectacular and you can feel the serenity), although a glider with an engine is sort of cheating >:D
It is, but I can never get enough of the freaking prop spinning out of the freaking nosecone.
I've always been impressed with gliders, especially around wavecamps. I got my commercial license in Minden NV and was regaled with stories about pilots getting to 40,000 feet, traversing the entirety of the Sierra Nevadas and Baja in one flight.
-
At least it was only a replica Spitfire.
Any landing that you walk away from is a good landing O0
very much,,,,
-
Vintage Spanish Harrier
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8506/8500139215_1ec1c50325_b.jpg)
-
Vintage Spanish Harrier
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8506/8500139215_1ec1c50325_b.jpg)
With such a small fleet, how many really are operational I wonder.
-
It is, but I can never get enough of the freaking prop spinning out of the freaking nosecone.
I've always been impressed with gliders, especially around wavecamps. I got my commercial license in Minden NV and was regaled with stories about pilots getting to 40,000 feet, traversing the entirety of the Sierra Nevadas and Baja in one flight.
It is very cool, but if you are going to cheat, then do it properly:
(http://www.flyingmag.com/sites/flyingmag.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2010/sites/all/files/_images/201006/FLY061010_bonusjet_600x404.jpg?itok=l9_CJ9eI)
Desert Aerospace BonusJet, two-seater sailplane powered by a retractable PBS TJ-100 jet engine O0
Edit - fixed grammar
-
This is more
fear-inducing proper cheating ...
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/glider-taking-off-by-using-jr-jato-1-unit-not-functioning-picture-id50641489?s=612x612)
-
I have always considered this to be a fear inducing glider
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/ga_hamilcar.jpg)
A General Aircraft Limited GAL. 49 Hamilcar aka Hamilcar Mark I. The Hamilcar was constructed primarily from wood, with fabric-covered plywood forming the skin, and high grade steel reinforcement beams in critical areas. The Hamilcar was designed to carry heavy cargo, such as the Tetrarch or M22 Locust light tanks.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/M22_locust_-_Hamilcar_06.jpg)
I believe the aircrew who flew the Hamilcar to have balls, enormous depleted uranium ones.
-
Another glider image. The loverly Stemme S12
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/66/6d/d0/666dd05638f1c8c2c1c3ac5410a3a5ca.jpg)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKzf0WZG_U
For years I've wondered how far across the US you could fly one of these on a tank of gas... If I had the time and money it would be fun to try!
-
Certainly the British glider pilots had significant testicular fortitude - they were expected to fly in and then pick up a rifle and fight alongside the troops they had delivered until they could be repatriated to do it all again
I don't know the details of the other nationalities glider pilots rather than suggesting any lack of courage etc
-
If you're gonna make a glider, make a glider with BALLS.
-
If you're gonna make a glider, make a glider with BALLS.
Helps if they 'glide', too. That one was more of a 'graceful swan dive', as I recall. ;D
-
This seems appropriate in the aviation thread for the future armoured combat wargame of the 1980s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBlWiVUA1Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBlWiVUA1Y)
-
From there we can move into the 90s with this one from our bros at Air New Zealand:
https://youtu.be/ji65WI5QLZI (https://youtu.be/ji65WI5QLZI)
-
From there we can move into the 90s with this one from our bros at Air New Zealand:
https://youtu.be/ji65WI5QLZI (https://youtu.be/ji65WI5QLZI)
I like the ones for the Hobbit. They were pretty neat.
-
This seems appropriate in the aviation thread for the future armoured combat wargame of the 1980s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBlWiVUA1Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBlWiVUA1Y)
Insufficient hair, lack of shoulder pads :D
-
How about some luxury and decadence courtesy of Air France then?
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/07/28/air-france-first-class-777-review/
-
Insufficient hair, lack of shoulder pads :D
How are you going to fit anymore hair under the neurohelmet, though? And do the shoulder pads really help if they are 80s-big?
-
This seems appropriate in the aviation thread for the future armoured combat wargame of the 1980s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBlWiVUA1Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBlWiVUA1Y)
Wow.
I always give Delta credit for these. As well as for meta references like the "no smoking" finger waggle from the red-headed attendant.
-
How about some luxury and decadence courtesy of Air France then?
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/07/28/air-france-first-class-777-review/
Damn... talk about how the other half lives!
-
I did Business Class 777 from Melbourne to LA earlier in the year (yay business trips over 9 hours!). And ...
Yes. Really, yes. I mean, if you have to travel, get someone else to pay business class for you. (I can't see any difference between first class & business these days.) The Platinum lounge at O'Hare was pretty darned cool too.
Only problem? The sleeping pods are shaped like almonds, head at the round end, and designed for someone up to 5'11". Me, 6'0.5", and my toes kept jamming in the pointy end.
-
[drool]
Steaks on a plane...
-
I did Business Class 777 from Melbourne to LA earlier in the year (yay business trips over 9 hours!). And ...
Yes. Really, yes. I mean, if you have to travel, get someone else to pay business class for you. (I can't see any difference between first class & business these days.) The Platinum lounge at O'Hare was pretty darned cool too.
Only problem? The sleeping pods are shaped like almonds, head at the round end, and designed for someone up to 5'11". Me, 6'0.5", and my toes kept jamming in the pointy end.
Good to know, though I'm pretty sure the government won't spring for business class...
-
The tilapia (amazon fish big as your leg) fillets were just ... wonderful. Plus the Glen Farclas to drink afterwards.
Alas, I was too big for the complimentary slippers.
-
Good to know, though I'm pretty sure the government won't spring for business class...
Actually, the Government travel standard requires Business Class travel for all overseas travel.
Even better when the Qantas air stewardess misreads the passenger manifest and mistakes your rank for being Qantas flight crew staff and therefore lays on the first class service from Sydney to Bangkok O0
-
That must be a change... all the overseas flights I've ever had were coach (or worse, contract air)...
-
Your Government's travel standards may differ from those of my Government's travel standards . . .
-
and different airlines have different standards as well. first class on one airline might well be equal to coach on another.
-
Your Government's travel standards may differ from those of my Government's travel standards . . .
Also helps that any international flight from our great, upside-down country that isn't going to Nu Zulland or Bali is going to be many, MANY hours, and to hell with spending half a day or more in coach
-
One bitchin' paint job:
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/07/HGP_6255-9x19a-768x364.jpg)
-
OK, how about the picture I actually intended to post:
(http://static-27.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/54af8271-c6fb-4593-b072-5507d353ff3f-large16x9_F15173rdFighterWing.jpg)
Though the Eagle and Lightning duo was interesting in it's own way...
-
I guess the rise of the Radar Absorbent Material coatings instead of paint will spell the final death of such aircraft art :'(
-
What would make you think that is the case?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/12/bb/5d/12bb5dc3068729db1406f37f02949d9b.jpg)
-
What would make you think that is the case?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/12/bb/5d/12bb5dc3068729db1406f37f02949d9b.jpg)
That would be me being wrong
-
They did paint up a Raptor for the Transformer movies:
(http://www.transformers2.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ben_procter_starscream.jpg)
-
not necessarily different RAM's can have different Tones & Tints, if you get creative with the Blacks & Grays you can do some amazing stuff.
and you can possibly brake up your radar profile by using different RAM's in a design than going with the one RAM over the whole craft.
-
It does not always have be as obvious as a whole aircraft artwork either:
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/F-22-bomb-marks-706x471.jpg)
Take a closer look:
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/F-22-bomb-marks-close-up-hi.jpg)
Yes, the kill markers are bomb silhouettes represent GBU-32 1,000-lb JDAMs on a F-22 (serialled AF05-086)
-
Someone's been busy
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b1/4d/6a/b14d6ade11a2568ddebe4a9e0b30062e--tiger-stripes-model-airplanes.jpg)
I'm in. Let's do this thing.
-
Here's one that will hurt the eyes
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-18b38fb519f438d084506b1f56a5bb13-c)
I can't tell what this plane is (a Hunter?), but it looks cool
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dxnxWUxvZAM/TUE_GE21YpI/AAAAAAAAArE/1EBvD6vd-d4/s1600/Image+2+-+Al+Ain+Aerobatic+Show+press+release+26+01+11.jpg)
And this Hind is incredible as well
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/25/97/82/259782bc6166ba786ff6b6f38b81616a.jpg)
-
I can't tell what this plane is (a Hunter?), but it looks cool
It is a Hunter. I've had the pleasure of seeing that particular aircraft I thnk, in several different schemes at a number of shows at the National Aviation Museum in Scotland. That is probably the most eycatching colours I've seen it wear.
Karl
-
Hunters are always lovely. Second-nicest looking plane of their era. (Sorry, but... J35 Draken. Fight me, bruh.)
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dxnxWUxvZAM/TUE_GE21YpI/AAAAAAAAArE/1EBvD6vd-d4/s1600/Image+2+-+Al+Ain+Aerobatic+Show+press+release+26+01+11.jpg)
According to wiki, that is "Miss Demeanour", a privately-owned Hawker Hunter F.58A.
Hunters are always lovely. Second-nicest looking plane of their era. (Sorry, but... J35 Draken. Fight me, bruh.)
Draken has shock value in an era of rather boring-looking aircraft, but I'll raise you the English Electric Lightning... it's so ugly it's good! ;D
(https://s3.postimg.org/7yiuezajn/800px-_Ee_lightning_t4_xm974_arp.jpg)
(https://s3.postimg.org/6uyq30pwj/d3ae910f3a77897bb39c7e2d7447bb35.jpg)
(https://s4.postimg.org/6r6mbc731/English_Electric_Lightning_F1_A_UK_-_Air_Force_A.jpg)
-
I know what they were going for, but at that particular angle, it looks a whole lot like that Hind is painted up as a Platypus.
-
The EE Lightning - engines, a bit of fuel, stub wings and strap a pilot on somewhere. Job done.
-
Let's try retro for a bit . . .
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/22/01/28F1D3BB00000578-0-image-a-6_1432254528474.jpg)
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DSC_0003.jpg)
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/the-2015-cf-18-demonstration-hornet-2a.jpg?w=479)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/78/1e/6a781e21199f34102e8964684736cdb6--military-jets-military-aircraft.jpg)
-
I think the JSDF do some of the best artwork:
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/418bcce5df12d4c66286c6ace04c568b/tumblr_nfceadOO6m1txx6x7o3_1280.jpg)
-
And this Hind is incredible as well
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/25/97/82/259782bc6166ba786ff6b6f38b81616a.jpg)
Hind... or a Jade Falcon Lamprey?
-
I like old warbirds... even those threatened by termites.
(http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/de-Havilland-Mosquito-NZ-Flight-Test.jpg)
de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito
-
The Mosquito is a beautiful aircraft. It is amazing what they managed to build with a bit of plywood, canvas and dope (no not that type).
-
It was so good the Germans tried to do something similar, even going so far as to copy the name: The Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Focke-Wulf_Ta_154.jpg)
For everything the Germans could do really well, wood glue was not one of them.
-
For everything the Germans could do really well, wood glue was not one of them.
To be fair, while they had the Wuppertal factory, the glue was just fine. Once that got plastered, they switched to a different blend that no one knew would turn highly acidic. The Volksjäger was how they found out...a damn shame too; not all that bad an aircraft and much more modern in design than typical planes of the era (or for a while afterward). And the early models carried the paired 30mm cannon, definitely giving someone off the nose a very bad day.
-
And the early models carried the paired 30mm cannon, definitely giving someone off the nose a very bad day.
Unfortunately, they were the MK108 low-velocity cannon, not the higher velocity MK101 or MK103. My favourite comment on the MK108 was from a Luftwaffe pilot, who said it was "slightly better than a grenade launcher" - it's in Mano Ziegler's "Rocket Fighter" IIRC.
-
That's a neat paint on that F16. Never knew they put in a classic paint job on a Falcon.
-
Unfortunately, they were the MK108 low-velocity cannon, not the higher velocity MK101 or MK103. My favourite comment on the MK108 was from a Luftwaffe pilot, who said it was "slightly better than a grenade launcher" - it's in Mano Ziegler's "Rocket Fighter" IIRC.
In addition to it's low velocity, it also had a slow rate of fire. On the Komet, low rate of fire combined with the plane's high speed resulted in a lot of "First round misses behind B-17, second round misses in front of B-17".
One of many reasons the Komet scored only 16 kills.
-
And even so, according to the Air Vectors website (a great place to lose hours), the He 162 was too lightly built to support the recoil even from the MK108 ...
-
They knew those issues and didn't try for quad 20mm or such as a stop cap measure?
-
They knew those issues and didn't try for quad 20mm or such as a stop cap measure?
The prevailing theory in the Luftwaffe by that point was that 30mm = insta-kill on a bomber. A brief burst of fire, maybe two or three rounds per barrel, and you could blow a B-24 apart- then move on to the next one. So, 30mm was the caliber preferred for planes intended to go bomber-hunting. That it had the muzzle velocity of a squirrel throwing an acorn was unfortunate, but how hard can it be to hit a huge bomber flying slowly in a straight line? (Answer: Not nearly as easy as it seemed, apparently)
A far more useful idea, as it turned out- at least in theory- was the BK 5 mounted in a few Me-262s, a 50mm cannon (it saw service on a few other types as well here and there). It had a few drawbacks- low ammo carriage (21 shots), jam-prone, and with a ferocious muzzle flash that tended to blind pilots if fired at night. But, a hit to even the toughest bomber would blow it apart, and with good accuracy and range it was a surprisingly effective tool.
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/509d2c038902489d8f7b4e5be057d96d/tumblr_o43u53vt6j1u87v54o1_500.jpg)
-
Here's one that will hurt the eyes
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-18b38fb519f438d084506b1f56a5bb13-c)
"I say again, target has gone 8-bit."
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/509d2c038902489d8f7b4e5be057d96d/tumblr_o43u53vt6j1u87v54o1_500.jpg)
does that pic scream "Mechbuster" to anyone else?
-
Is that the 50mm cannon on a 262?
-
Hunters are always lovely. Second-nicest looking plane of their era. (Sorry, but... J35 Draken. Fight me, bruh.)
Draken is a striking looking aircraft, thats for sure - and the whole short landing roll thing is startling when you see it in action. (Especially when the pilot decides he's just going to then back up because the nearest taxiway is behind him. :-) )
Hunters have a certain grace though, they seem "relaxed" in the air somehow. But I think my favourite older jet aircraft will remain the F-4 Phantom though - specifically the ex-RN ones that the RAF operated. When you grow up with the howl of those engines around most days it leaves an impression.
Karl
-
I think it's a 37 Viggen if it backed up, AFAIK the J35 never had a thrust reverser.
-
Is that the 50mm cannon on a 262?
That's... yeah, did you read my post? :-\
-
That's... yeah, did you read my post? :-\
Sorry. I guess I should of read.
-
And in other news, the Brits have launched an externally loaded Lightning from a 'ski jump' for first time:
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/080/73080/1707199_-_main.jpg)
-
Lame. It's been done before.
(http://www.seeing-stars.com/Locations/Speed/BusJump.jpg)
-
Damn, just when I thought I'd completely blocked that piece of shit of a movie from my memory you had to go and bring it back. >:(
-
Damn, just when I thought I'd completely blocked that piece of shit of a movie from my memory you had to go and bring it back. >:(
Thats a great combo....it fits perfectly.
Just dont bring up Speed 2
-
Just dont bring up Speed 2
Never subjected myself to it. I don't like to repeat my mistakes.
-
That's about the first time I've seen an F-35 actually look good!
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/15/air-force-pilot-performs-miracle-landing-with-no-wheels-canopy.html
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2017/08/15/air-force-pilot-performs-miracle-landing-with-no-wheels-canopy/_jcr_content/par/featured_image/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1502845810196.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
-
I wonder how the canopy coming off damaged the underside unless that was actually the gun misfiring that did that
Anyway, it's more impressive than might be thought from *just* belly landing an A-10 but I guess that is why pilots wear helmet/facemask/visor all the time in the air rather than removing them like they do in films (so that you can see the expensive actor's face)
-
They really need to reconsider re-opening the A-10 production line and produce an updated A-10 Super Thunderbolt IIC.
Yes I know it will not happen because the flyboys in Air Force are afraid that doing that would mean reducing the number of precious F-22s or F-35s. However the A-10s combat record and record of making it home after sustaining massive amounts of damage speaks for itself.
-
Any other aircraft: Airframe total loss, salvage any reasonable parts/equipment.
Warthog: Flight status green for Monday morning, another day at the ****** office. ;D
-
They really need to reconsider re-opening the A-10 production line and produce an updated A-10 Super Thunderbolt IIC.
Yes I know it will not happen because the flyboys in Air Force are afraid that doing that would mean reducing the number of precious F-22s or F-35s. However the A-10s combat record and record of making it home after sustaining massive amounts of damage speaks for itself.
The A-10 and the F-35 are going to do different missions
The A-10 is really more a competitor to the AH-64 or drones
I'd like to keep the A-10 in the NATO armoury (I'd be happy for the RAF or British Army Air Corps to take them over!) but not necessarily at the expense of the F-35s, more the huge numbers of attack helicopters being used which have shorter legs, can't take the altitudes of Afghanistan etc as well and are probably even more vulnerable to MANPADS
(images taken from random Google Images search)
-
Always loved that comparison between the A-10 and the F-35
-
Yes I know it will not happen because the flyboys in Air Force are afraid that doing that would mean reducing the number of precious F-22s or F-35s.
Guaranteed, re-opening the A-10 lines won't impact at all on F-22 numbers. F-22 line is already closed down. F-35 is the only game in town for USAF.
It's enough to make you want to give the nice people at Sukhoi a call ...
-
Guaranteed, re-opening the A-10 lines won't impact at all on F-22 numbers. F-22 line is already closed down. F-35 is the only game in town for USAF.
It's enough to make you want to give the nice people at Sukhoi a call ...
Without going anywhere closer to Rule 4, I suspect that avenue is not viable at the moment. ::)
Side note, my dad called a while ago from his home on Martha's Vineyard to tell me he had a pair of extremely loud visitors around lunchtime today- two engines and two tails, but he didn't know exactly what they were- he's sending photos to me tonight, I guess. My bet is F-18s, though -15s or even -22s aren't out of the question. It used to be that the island directly to the south (Noman's Land) was a naval bombing range- I used to love going with my granddad on his boat down there to watch A-6s and A-7s make bombing runs when I was a boy. Today the range is closed and has been made into a wildlife refuge (and isn't open to visitors, due to a century of unexploded ordnance!), so while the bet is naval aircraft were Dad's visitors, the closing of the range means it's no slam-dunk guess anymore. Either way, I'll try to get his photos posted here if he remembers to send them.
-
Guaranteed, re-opening the A-10 lines won't impact at all on F-22 numbers. F-22 line is already closed down. F-35 is the only game in town for USAF.
It's enough to make you want to give the nice people at Sukhoi a call ...
The A-10 line being shut down since 1984 and the tooling long being gone won't help much, either. Plus the F-15 and F-16 are still being built, even if the U.S. Air Force isn't buying any more.
-
The A-10 and the F-35 are going to do different missions
A-10 will fight low-end insurgents.
F-35 will fight everything else.
(http://www.metronor.com/military/files/2014/08/Open_canopy_head_on.jpg)
-
Guaranteed, re-opening the A-10 lines won't impact at all on F-22 numbers. F-22 line is already closed down. F-35 is the only game in town for USAF.
The fear for the flyboy Generals will be that they may be forced by the politicians and/or bean-counters to sacrifice an F-22 squadron to be mothballed or reduce the number of F-35s to be procured to keep the A-10s flying. So much easier to play the game of brinkmanship of mothballing the A-10s and wait for the grunt Generals to lobby the politicians and/or bean-counters to give the flyboys more money to keep the A-10s flying without having to sacrifice F-22s or F-35s. Got to love Defence tribal politics at its best/worst . . .
(http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21512&t=1)
-
It's not quite to "my grandpappy flew 'er" status like the B-52 yet, but I'm sure it'll get there.
-
It's not quite to "my grandpappy flew 'er" status like the B-52 yet, but I'm sure it'll get there.
I remain convinced that when the last F-22, to say nothing of the A-10, head off to the boneyard for retirement, a B-52 will perform a salute flyover.
-
I remain convinced that when the last F-22, to say nothing of the A-10, head off to the boneyard for retirement, a B-52 will perform a salute flyover.
If it aint broke, don't fix it. If it's old but not broke, upgrade it.
-
(http://www.usaf.com/photosaircraft/b52e.jpg)
That is because they were "built to last" engineering masterpieces as opposed to the current fad of "engineered to fail" disposable toys.
-
That is because they were "built to last" engineering masterpieces as opposed to the current fad of "engineered to fail" disposable toys.
Design started: 1946. First Flight: 1952. Introduction to Service: 1955. Retirement: Sometime after Ragnarok. :)
-
Well, lets see what the LRSB project comes up with. So far almost everything we know is Cold War legacy, yes even the Bones...
-
it is "like the B-2 but smaller"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Artist_Rendering_B21_Bomber_Air_Force_Official.jpg)
and they named it the B-21.
Northrop Grumman won the contract, which to be honest, i find annoying because no one had even built a single practical test model yet.
about the only thing we do know is it will be using the same P&W F135 engines off the F-35.
the USAF is also looking to develop a new "penetrating counter Air" fighter with long range and stealth to escort the B-21's around as well (alongside the "sixth generation fighter" they want to replace the F-22 and F-35 by the late 2020's.. F-35 isn't even operable yet and they already are looking to replace it)
If Northrop is smart, they'll dust off the YF-23 blueprints, update the avionics and engines, and and be ready to submit that as the 'penetrating counter air" because the YF-23 was definitely long ranged and stealthy.
-
The F-35 has roots in early 90s fighter programs and is just now entering mass production with an expected service life of 40 more years at the minimum. If it takes another 30-odd years to get to prototype stage of the next fighter, its not unrealistic to start thinking now... and the way the world is settling down nowadays, the development stages of major military kit aren't getting shorter.
-
You'd sort of hope that the future of aircraft (and other) manufacturing lines will be to 3d scan and analyse the material of an extant model of [thing to be copied be it A-10 or F-22] and then print it out/get a computer to cut a piece to the right shape
-
Design started: 1946. First Flight: 1952. Introduction to Service: 1955. Retirement: Sometime after Ragnarok. :)
Retirement: Upon execution of its original mission.
-
That is because they were "built to last" engineering masterpieces as opposed to the current fad of "engineered to fail" disposable toys.
"Overengineered". Once the aviation technology got much more understood, they started to engineer stuff specifically to do just the job and not one bit more.
I really like the over-engineered basic stuff though, because that's how you get robustness.
-
Build it as light as possible, accept your known maintenance requirements, and enjoy the extra performance. Lighter and sleeker generally equates to faster, after all. (Amongst other things that will rule4 me right the hell off this board.)
-
Build it as light as possible, accept your known maintenance requirements, and enjoy the extra performance. Lighter and sleeker generally equates to faster, after all. (Amongst other things that will rule4 me right the hell off this board.)
You don't have much wiggle room anyway. Every time I see that avatar of yours my hand hovers over the 'BAN' button. :P
(kidding, there's no 'ban' button. No one listens to my ideas!)
-
If Northrop is smart, they'll dust off the YF-23 blueprints, update the avionics and engines, and and be ready to submit that as the 'penetrating counter air" because the YF-23 was definitely long ranged and stealthy.
I always thought we should have gone with the YF-23 instead of the (Y)F-22...
Ruger
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/c841d31baccf9aa63770e406d8cdc07f/tumblr_oulbx5qhry1qgggino1_1280.jpg)
Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow
-
You don't have much wiggle room anyway. Every time I see that avatar of yours my hand hovers over the 'BAN' button. :P
(kidding, there's no 'ban' button. No one listens to my ideas!)
Amusingly, I just fixed that. Alas, the legend of Star Commander Zed of Clan Scarlet Nappy is no more.
-
Amusingly, I just fixed that. Alas, the legend of Star Commander Zed of Clan Scarlet Nappy is no more.
Is that from Spice and Wolf
-
Is that from Spice and Wolf
It is indeed.
Hey! Aviation!
(http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/ah_56_cheyenne.jpg)
Ah, what could have been.
-
Speaking of what could have been
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Rah-66_w_apache_02.jpg)
-
It's hard to think of an aircraft that combined such eye-catching beauty and jaw-dropping failure as the RAH-66.
But I'll put a picture of a competitor in that category here anyway- the Bristol Brabazon airliner.
(http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/airliners/images5/61.jpg)
-
The Ah-66 Comanche was a cool looking helo. I don't know how stealth could help a close in battle like a normal help fight.
-
The Ah-66 Comanche was a cool looking helo. I don't know how stealth could help a close in battle like a normal help fight.
The same way it does on a Wulfen...on the way in & out of the battlefield. The other possibility is in making it harder for missiles and other electronic targeting systems to lock on.
-
The big thing to remember on the Comanche is that it wasn't an attack helicopter- at least, not as a primary role. It carried a few Hellfires inside (Stinger, as I recall, was looked at as well), along with the nose-gun, but its weapons were meant to assist the Apaches, not replace them. Comanche was intended instead to replace the Kiowa as the Army's recon chopper, with attack as a secondary role- and in a scout/spotting role, being difficult to detect on radar was considered to be vital. It's safe to expect that in service the aircraft would have received a mast-mount sensor suite similar to what the Apache-D got, allowing it to peek from behind cover to find targets for itself and other aircraft. In addition to its stealth construction, the aircraft was intended to use a version of the Black Hole IR-suppression system the Apache got (cooling engine exhaust with outside air before being ejected to reduce the heat blossom for shoulder-launched missiles to track).
Comanches would have been extremely useful as a rotary-wing 'Wild Weasel' aircraft, hunting enemy mobile anti-aircraft systems down and destroying them while being difficult to target in return... or anyway, as a concept they would have been good at it. The actual aircraft was the textbook example of throwing good money at a bad project, and that it lasted as long as it did without a viable test airframe (one that could be reliably tested in combat scenarios rather than just flying around its test facility for cameras) is really quite staggering.
Sometimes a troubled program can still turn out well (the V-22, for example). This one belongs in the musty file cabinets of forgotten history.
-
It was honestly a good idea for a need. A low-observable moderately-armed light helicopter that could sneak all over the place as a recon element, and have a few good heavies on hand for when it found a target of opportunity. The biggest killer of the RAH-66 was its pilot - specifically, having to have one sitting in what would have been a forward-deployed and likely mostly-unsupported helo flitting about trying to find the bad guy and risking his life to do it.
Especially as this little thing was maturing quite nicely and stealing the Comanche's job. Hell, didn't a big nail in the coffin for the RAH-66 program hit when the first Predator dropped a Hellfire successfully? That was late-90s, IIRC...
(http://www.armadninoviny.cz/domains/0023-armadninoviny_cz/useruploads/images/raper.jpg)
(Yes I know what the filename says, it's a czech site so I'm allowing for a weird translation/typo fail)
-
It is indeed.
Hey! Aviation!
(http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/ah_56_cheyenne.jpg)
Ah, what could have been.
I really loved the Cheyenne's look...
Ruger
-
Not to mention her capability mix. Grenade launcher, minigun, 30mm cannon, and six stations for rockets & TOW, and an exceptional top speed as well as frighteningly effective low-level flight? She'd have been a CAS monster. During testing against air-defense troops, those choppers could race in fast and, because of the stable flight from the fixed wings, repeatedly were on top of said infantry/mechanized units before being spotted.
-
The Cheyanne was huge also, just a big Heli and probably would of been hard to hide. The single engine design also a problem. I like the pusher prop attached to it to give it the speed. The X-97 Raider Heli has the pusher with the dual main rotors and has incredible speed.
-
None can possibly hold a candle to the greatest helicopter prototype ever developed though.
(http://www.dennisrc.com/Airwolf_Build/images/nosein.jpg)
-
How about:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Blue_Thunder_in_flight.jpg/300px-Blue_Thunder_in_flight.jpg)
-
I do like the sleek look of the Raider
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/29/01/2928C04800000578-0-image-a-9_1432857761698.jpg)
-
When the Life Flight Helicopterf flew over I would always call it Airwolf because it was a Bell 222 model just like Airwolf. People around me would get it or look at me like I was crazy. Most of the later.
-
When the Life Flight Helicopterf flew over I would always call it Airwolf because it was a Bell 222 model just like Airwolf. People around me would get it or look at me like I was crazy. Most of the later.
Damn it you said the A**W*** word, now the theme's in my head for at least 15 minutes ;D
-
Damn it you said the A**W*** word, now the theme's in my head for at least 15 minutes ;D
I had the toy as a kid ;D
-
Damn it you said the A**W*** word, now the theme's in my head for at least 15 minutes ;D
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/44/2f/ef/442fef1e0a651ee1c6515135e850e2f5--archangel-cords.jpg)
Please repeat it in your head for another 15. Thank you. - Archangel
-
Ok lets move away from AirWolf for a minute (sorry Kidd, another 15 mins I guess :D )
The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, no not that one, this was the original Blackhawk, a tandem, 2-seater attack helicopter. Armed with a 30 mm cannon and could carry 16 TOW missiles, 2.75-inch (70 mm) rockets, or AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.
(http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/images/images%20S-67/S67-6A.jpg)
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/sikorsky/sik_s-67_1.jpg)
-
*triggered* dum de dum, DAH DAH DE DAH, DAH DAH DE DAH, dum de dum dum ;D
I admit to being a sucker for the Eurofighter Typhoon, probably the next best fighter in the world after the F-22.
(https://s21.postimg.org/4ij0ybos7/Typhoons-_Kuznetsov-top.jpg)
-
*triggered* dum de dum, DAH DAH DE DAH, DAH DAH DE DAH, dum de dum dum ;D
My work here is done.
-
Not to mention her capability mix. Grenade launcher, minigun, 30mm cannon, and six stations for rockets & TOW, and an exceptional top speed as well as frighteningly effective low-level flight? She'd have been a CAS monster. During testing against air-defense troops, those choppers could race in fast and, because of the stable flight from the fixed wings, repeatedly were on top of said infantry/mechanized units before being spotted.
Yeah...she had a bit of everything, didn't she? And she was FAST...her top speed was over 60 mph faster than the Apache's...and range? She had over FOUR TIMES the range of the Apache...Not quite the service ceiling, but close...
She was a sexy well built amazon warrior...too bad she never got to prove herself...
Ok lets move away from AirWolf for a minute (sorry Kidd, another 15 mins I guess :D )
The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, no not that one, this was the original Blackhawk, a tandem, 2-seater attack helicopter. Armed with a 30 mm cannon and could carry 16 TOW missiles, 2.75-inch (70 mm) rockets, or AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.
(http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/images/images%20S-67/S67-6A.jpg)
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/sikorsky/sik_s-67_1.jpg)
Hmm...never seen that one before somehow...the Wikipedia entry says she was also supposed to be able to carry 15 troops...
Um...where? She looks awfully thin to carry 15 people inside her body... ???
Ruger
-
Um...where? She looks awfully thin to carry 15 people inside her body... ???
Ruger
The King's Own Parachute Midgets?
-
Underwing pylons. :)
-
probably someone confusing it for the UH-60.
the S-67 was designed with a (cramped) space for up to 6 troops (8 with light gear.)
-
Underwing pylons. :)
I'll raise you an overwing bag.
(http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/janome_gotyou/imgs/7/1/712d48a6.jpg)
-
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Rafale-refueling-over-Baghdad.jpg)
And now, a quick stop over the night skies of Paris.
-
A nice collection here;
http://imgur.com/gallery/z0QxA
-
The caption on #9 is PERFECT! 8)
-
It was honestly a good idea for a need. A low-observable moderately-armed light helicopter that could sneak all over the place as a recon element, and have a few good heavies on hand for when it found a target of opportunity. The biggest killer of the RAH-66 was its pilot - specifically, having to have one sitting in what would have been a forward-deployed and likely mostly-unsupported helo flitting about trying to find the bad guy and risking his life to do it.
Especially as this little thing was maturing quite nicely and stealing the Comanche's job. Hell, didn't a big nail in the coffin for the RAH-66 program hit when the first Predator dropped a Hellfire successfully? That was late-90s, IIRC...
http://www.armadninoviny.cz/domains/0023-armadninoviny_cz/useruploads/images/raper.jpg
(Yes I know what the filename says, it's a czech site so I'm allowing for a weird translation/typo fail)
actually i need to chime in here..
the Comanche project ended in 2004, but it had been pretty much dead from when the first prototype rolled out in 1995. with the End of the cold war hitting right aound when the project started in 1988, the question of whether an expensive new attack helicopter was even needed had been looming over the project from day one, and by 1995, it was clear to everyone involved that the soviet union was gone and the massive super-power vs super-power conflict it was designed for wasn't going to happen.
when it was shown that that upgraded versions of the AH-64 Apache (the AH-64D Apache Longbow), AH-1 Cobra (the AH-1Z "viper" Supercobra) and the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior (the OH-58D) offered similar operational capabilities at a far cheaper price, the project lost steam.
the first predator to employ a weapon was on 16 February, 2001. the first deployments of the MQ-1A armed versions occurred later that year, but were considered a stopgap until the larger more capable MQ-9 Reaper could be deployed (which it was, in 2007)
so no, the predators did not kill the Comanche. at most, they were a final nail in the coffin.
interesting bit, did you know that the predator drone's origin actually dates back to the 80's? the CIA had the Leading Systems Incorporated "Amber" UAV developed to spy on hostile countries, though it had its funding killed in early 1989 as fallout from attempts to consolidate numerous drone projects into a coherant development program. that bankrupted the company that built it, because they had sunk a lot of funds into work on improved models..
(https://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/uav_amber.jpg)
Leading Systems Incorporated would be bought up by General Atomics, who would update the Amber into the "Gnat 750" in late 1989, using the LSI plans as a start.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/General_Atomics_I-GNAT_ER.jpg)
both of these drones lacked sattelite comms (which at the time were really bulky unless you had the cutting edge military gear the CIA didn't want to risk on a drone), though the i-Gnat that the CIA used in the early 1990's, featured a dorsal satellite comm, various airframe improvements, and a turboprop engine to get the extra power to handle the extra weight.
(https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/images/gnat-10.jpg)
the I-Gnat 750 is the predecessor of the GNAT 750-45, better known as the MQ-1 Predator, which started development in 1994 and the first prototype flew in 1995, and the first deployment was in 1996 to the Balkans. (where interestingly enough, it was operating alongside the CIA's I-Gnat 750's)
-
(https://files.ww2aircraft.net/2017/08/420274_55524e5038e615d26e74965e42c3ab79.jpg)
-
WTH? and it's wearing Canadian markings, too.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84) O0
-
Amusingly, we've gone right back to the light armed helicopter as a scout...just, as a drone. Behold the easiest paint job on any model kit ever! One wonders just how effective an RAH-66Q might have been...
Also it wasn't just weapon employment on the Predator, but the thing's very existence doing the same job as a recon chopper with better endurance and no risk to its pilot. Once the Predators had weapons, at their price point and lack of human risk, the Comanche (and also the Kiowa, as seen below) was doomed anyway. Like I said, not the killer, but the technology was a big nail in the coffin.
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Rafale-refueling-over-Baghdad.jpg)
And now, a quick stop over the night skies of Paris.
God that's fantastic.
Yeah...she had a bit of everything, didn't she? And she was FAST...her top speed was over 60 mph faster than the Apache's...and range? She had over FOUR TIMES the range of the Apache...Not quite the service ceiling, but close...
She was a sexy well built amazon warrior...too bad she never got to prove herself...
Yeah. And in addition to all of the above, the damn thing could fly backwards while maintaining a flat azimuth. Six stations for "all the rockets ever" or packs of TOW missiles would have been hilarious, especially if she'd have been given Hellfire as an upgrade like the Apache did. Add in the wicked accuracy of that 30mm cannon...honestly it was the Air Force and Army fighting over its fixed wings that doomed it.
The loss of a pilot was IMO entirely secondary but jumped on as a reason; the entire incident stunk. The 'half-p hop' rotor oscillation was known, and safety systems were built into the helicopter to prevent it. When the accident happened, those safety systems were explicitly disabled and removed, and the aircraft was repeatedly forced into a flight envelope designed specifically to generate the situation. It's the equivalent of deciding a car is unsafe to drive when you put a test driver in the car, disable the brakes, then test it to see how quickly it can stop before it crashes into a wall at high speed.
pictured: all the rockets ever
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XE0CrIup6Uc/hqdefault.jpg)
-
(https://files.ww2aircraft.net/2017/08/420274_55524e5038e615d26e74965e42c3ab79.jpg)
Let's not forget the other tiltwings.
The Vertol VZ-2:
(https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/collection-objects/record-images/19650279000d.JPG)
The Hiller X-18:
(https://kenyatalk.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/07/109900_e40f8126f515938f64614a1c979933c4.jpg)
The LTV XC-142:
(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/MY/MY76-10/6-4.jpg)
-
ooooh a four engine tilt wing.
-
[Scroll Up For Eye Candy]
And now, a quick stop over the night skies of Paris.
Nominated for the top 10 'night skies over the city'.
-
What happens when you leave pilot-engineers alone in a hangar with a crop duster and a Bell-47 for too long?
The Vertol VZ-2: What We Did With Your G.I. Bill.
But it didn't go fast enough, thus version 4.
(http://www.anigrand.com/images/items/AA2008_VZ-4/AA2008_VZ-4_real_2.jpg)
-
Amusingly, we've gone right back to the light armed helicopter as a scout...just, as a drone. Behold the easiest paint job on any model kit ever! One wonders just how effective an RAH-66Q might have been...
That's not a drone. That's the result of a sand storm.
-
The CL-84 is fun to fly. ;D
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4334/36581719821_80c87ec225_n.jpg)
-
Really enjoying the pics
Would like to add this bush rugged little 'red falcon' to the ensemble: The Denel Rooivalk
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/210/36210/1526003_-_main.jpg)
(https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=68815)
-
(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAdrAAAAJDQxY2IwNjFhLTU3NmEtNDc0Zi05ZjkxLWYxYjk4ZDI3MWMwOA.jpg)
Get off my lawn, you little bastards.
-
Something different about a all white paint job on a helicopter.
A paint job i can actually do!!!
-
Really enjoying the pics
Would like to add this bush rugged little 'red falcon' to the ensemble: The Denel Rooivalk
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/210/36210/1526003_-_main.jpg)
(https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=68815)
For a moment there I thought the Religious Phone Company had come a-calling :D
I always had a soft spot for the Rooivalk, does anybody know why it never got the export sales it wanted?
-
Remind me a little of that painting commissioned to showcase 2 navalized Apache in two separate scenes.
-
There were actually 2 different proposals for a navalized Apache:
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mcdonnell/md_seaapache_1.jpg)
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mcdonnell/md_seaapache_2.jpg)
-
There were actually 2 different proposals for a navalized Apache:
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mcdonnell/md_seaapache_2.jpg)
This one looks more like the British Lynx than an Apache with the exception of the engine pods.
-
I always had a soft spot for the Rooivalk, does anybody know why it never got the export sales it wanted?
Haven't found anything official but anecdotes/theories I've read largely fall under "Politics" and rather buying from an established/known vendor ('Devil you know over Devil you don't' was my impression.)
-
There were actually 2 different proposals for a navalized Apache:
This IS pretty much naval Apache, and reportedly the Brits are quite pleased with it:
(https://s4.postimg.org/5foorjg5p/Apache_Attack_Helicopter_Takes_Off_from_HMS_Ocea.jpg)
-
Haven't found anything official but anecdotes/theories I've read largely fall under "Politics" and rather buying from an established/known vendor ('Devil you know over Devil you don't' was my impression.)
yah.. until the last few decades south africa had some real global public opinion problems due to certain political issues, and while that has largely changed in recent years, it takes time to get people interested in your stuff. especially since they had to play catch up with much of the rest of the world in some areas of technology, and most of what they have to offer so far is either niche market items , or lower budget alternatives to far more recognizable items. (like the Rooivalk being a rough equivalent to the AH-64 Apache, and competing with modernized AH-1 Cobra's)
on the otherhand, without those political issues, it is likely they wouldn't have had to devote so much effort into developing domestic military gear in the first place, since the global public opinion problems kept them from being able to just buy from the exiting american or european options.
i figure in a few decades they'll find some buyers for their stuff.
-
Australian Department of Defence took a long and serious look at the Denel Rooivalk but in the end went with the Eurocopter Tiger instead
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/812cceacd838a274280ae6486400668e)
Here is a article on why it has not been as successful as it could have been: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-rooivalk-2007-06-08-1/rep_id:4136 (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-rooivalk-2007-06-08-1/rep_id:4136)
-
Oh man... Tiger is amazing. I got to see one of those a few years ago at an airshow at Patuxent River NAS (courtesy of a visit from the Luftwaffe). Very impressive performance overall anyway (particularly in comparison to the tame fly-back-and-forth-a-few-times made by a Marine AH-1Z). Even pulled an Immelman, which was quite the sight. But the highlight? At one point near the end, the crazy bastard started barrel-rolling.
Three times.
In an attack helicopter.
Now, that's not very useful in a combat situation, but as an aerobatic machine I'm sold on Tiger being second to none.
-
(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAdrAAAAJDQxY2IwNjFhLTU3NmEtNDc0Zi05ZjkxLWYxYjk4ZDI3MWMwOA.jpg)
Get off my lawn, you little bastards.
I have GOT to learn how to paint that...
-
There were actually 2 different proposals for a navalized Apache:
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mcdonnell/md_seaapache_1.jpg)
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mcdonnell/md_seaapache_2.jpg)
That's the same subject. What I remember was an artwork from a little book from a series about weapons, that book was all about Apache. I had another one that was all about B-17. And another about Supermarine Spitfire.
That artwork depicts those sketches with color and weather effect (the bottom one with the stormy sky and a lightning strike in the background).
-
Here is a article on why it has not been as successful as it could have been: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-rooivalk-2007-06-08-1/rep_id:4136 (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-rooivalk-2007-06-08-1/rep_id:4136)
And here's an article with more recent developments if people are curious:
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38986:denel-exploring-rooivalk-programme-restart&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107 (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38986:denel-exploring-rooivalk-programme-restart&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107)
-
Love the photo with the Battleship in the back ground.
-
Australian Department of Defence took a long and serious look at the Denel Rooivalk but in the end went with the Eurocopter Tiger instead
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/812cceacd838a274280ae6486400668e)
Here is a article on why it has not been as successful as it could have been: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-rooivalk-2007-06-08-1/rep_id:4136 (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-rooivalk-2007-06-08-1/rep_id:4136)
Very good article, thanks.
What a pity. IIRC the Canucks were looking at the Rooivalk too, and I can think of a couple other 3rd-world nations who would have bought it if it had delivered on time.
-
(https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAdrAAAAJDQxY2IwNjFhLTU3NmEtNDc0Zi05ZjkxLWYxYjk4ZDI3MWMwOA.jpg)
Get off my lawn, you little bastards.
Again, Jade Falcon Lamprey
-
Oh man... Tiger is amazing. I got to see one of those a few years ago at an airshow at Patuxent River NAS (courtesy of a visit from the Luftwaffe). Very impressive performance overall anyway (particularly in comparison to the tame fly-back-and-forth-a-few-times made by a Marine AH-1Z). Even pulled an Immelman, which was quite the sight. But the highlight? At one point near the end, the crazy bastard started barrel-rolling.
Three times.
In an attack helicopter.
Now, that's not very useful in a combat situation, but as an aerobatic machine I'm sold on Tiger being second to none.
Unfortunately, it has been less than amazing for us. They were meant to achieve FOC (Final Operational Capability) in 2009 but finally achieved FOC last year (with caveats in a few capability areas that will probably mean that Tiger will never achieve all the operational requirements that were originally set for it). This meant that when we had a big presence in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan 5+ years ago we had to rely on the Dutch with their Apaches to provide rotary-wing CAS for the Australian task group instead of being able to send our Tiger ARHs. Serviceability rates were so low that the pilots were struggling to get 150 hours of flying time a year to keep current and qualified on them.
Current plan is to actually retire them early instead of doing a mid-life upgrade (that would have probaby seen them finally meet all their original operational requirements) and look at replacing them from mid-2020 onwards.
-
Oops forgot to include a picture, being an aviation picture thread and all . . .
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/4de051bc936c5e37ba7fa6d1400e0f33)
-
Here's a rather imposing picture,
(http://www.impdb.org/images/5/55/Kamov_Ka-50_350px.jpg)
ADMIN EDIT: You used code tags instead of image tags, went in and fixed it for you. Nice 'Gator!
-
Re: navalised Apache, the two images look as though there is a weather covering for the front mounted sensors on one of them (sensible) and a loss of the cannon (not sure how sensible) on the odder looking one
My rather rubbish work computer doesn't seem to like all of the links about the Rooivalk :'(
-
I didn't pay attention to the weather cover, but you're right, no gun. That's not good news- while those Harpoons (oh ye gods!) are great for dealing with targets from a long way out, this would have struggled to deal with PT-boat swarms and such- and with that seeming to be the preferred way to chase ships out of Hormuz, for example (we'll leave Rule 4 right there and veer away!), that chain gun is going to be greatly missed.
-
I didn't pay attention to the weather cover, but you're right, no gun. That's not good news- while those Harpoons (oh ye gods!) are great for dealing with targets from a long way out, this would have struggled to deal with PT-boat swarms and such- and with that seeming to be the preferred way to chase ships out of Hormuz, for example (we'll leave Rule 4 right there and veer away!), that chain gun is going to be greatly missed.
70mm rockets say "hello!"
-
Re: navalised Apache, the two images look as though there is a weather covering for the front mounted sensors on one of them (sensible) and a loss of the cannon (not sure how sensible) on the odder looking one
My rather rubbish work computer doesn't seem to like all of the links about the Rooivalk :'(
The bottom, odder looking, one seems to resemble some of the older naval choppers that have "streamline" flying boat style bottom fuselage.
-
The Paint Scheme Competition has been won (literally) by the Czechs.
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-2.jpg)
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-5.jpg)
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-3.jpg)
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-1.jpg)
http://www.guns.com/2016/06/02/czech-out-this-mi-24-hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-natos-tiger-meet-5-photos/ (http://www.guns.com/2016/06/02/czech-out-this-mi-24-hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-natos-tiger-meet-5-photos/)
I daresay there will never be a more appropriate paint job for an attack helo, and the Hind's curvy shapes are doubly perfect.
-
"How to make enemy infantry shit themselves, part 1"
-
Wow, what a paint job on that Mi24
-
Astounding! I love it.
-
Wow, what a paint job on that Mi24
And you just know it that if someone did that on a model kit, there will be someone who call BS on the "realistic" paintjob. ::)
-
Again, Jade Falcon Lamprey
I dunno...from that picture I'm still saying clan Silt Platypus!
-
The Paint Scheme Competition has been won (literally) by the Czechs.
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-2.jpg)
I daresay there will never be a more appropriate paint job for an attack helo, and the Hind's curvy shapes are doubly perfect.
Well I'm not going to sleep tonight
-
Here you go DB, to bring you more harmonious dreams tonight:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0e/a8/4d/0ea84d85f0890ad882e0aba59ca52668.jpg)
-
Got to visit an old lady this afternoon...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4440/35967913364_b0f38fa114.jpg)
-
The Paint Scheme Competition has been won (literally) by the Czechs.
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-2.jpg)
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-5.jpg)
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-3.jpg)
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-1.jpg)
http://www.guns.com/2016/06/02/czech-out-this-mi-24-hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-natos-tiger-meet-5-photos/ (http://www.guns.com/2016/06/02/czech-out-this-mi-24-hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-natos-tiger-meet-5-photos/)
I daresay there will never be a more appropriate paint job for an attack helo, and the Hind's curvy shapes are doubly perfect.
Thats just astonishing :o
-
Very-close Air Support
(https://i.imgur.com/s4Bz9pC.gif)
"Lieutenant, what have I told you about letting your troops get bored?"
Speaking of which, the MiG-21 at it's trimmest (or close to it) in the early F13 version:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/NASM_-_MiG-21F_-_Fishbed_C_-2.jpg/1024px-NASM_-_MiG-21F_-_Fishbed_C_-2.jpg)
And its most bloated in the SMT version:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/MiG_21_SMT_-_Altenburg-Nobitz.jpg/1024px-MiG_21_SMT_-_Altenburg-Nobitz.jpg)
Its 'final' production form in the Soviet timeline as the MiG-21bis:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/26/bc/58/26bc58fb137556bdccffd2964d767a3d.jpg)
Its 'final' recognizable form from the Chinese timeline as the J-7E/G / F-7M Airguard (note new wing):
(https://www.aviationsmilitaires.net/media/pictures/Pakistan_Air_Force_Chengdu_F-7PG_inflight.jpg)
And its metamorphosis into something that doesn't remotely look alike as the JF-17:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26%2C660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat.jpg/1024px-Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26%2C660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat.jpg)
Like, what's left from the original MiG-21 in that? Looks like a case of Grandpa's axe
-
I wish they'd pushed on with the Ye-8 variant:
(http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Mikoyan-Gurevich-Ye-81.jpg)
And the Ye-150 series was basically Mig-21 airframes with Tumansky engines - yes, the ones used in the Yastreb drones, or more famously the Mig-25 (shown: Ye-152):
(http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/b/3/23/148/23148726_E152.jpg)
The Ye-8 program died due to engine deficiencies, while the Ye-150s were transitional designs, giving much-needed experience in development of high-speed interceptors. But I can't help loving the look of both - the 8 was the Eurofighter decades before the Eurofighter, and the 152 was - to quote Jeremy Clarkson - more POWER!
W.
-
I have a soft spot for the MiG-21. I've allways liked its looks for being so very retrofuture. Plus it once helped me win a pointless argument.
(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/14/pics/72_48.jpg)
Plus there's the oft fabulous colours of the Indian ones
-
"Krishna-3, I spotted you! Hah! Get it? Spotted!"
"razzashannermatshnazzer"
-
Migs. Someone said Migs. Fine, have some Migs. Dirty, dirty close ups. NAS Fallon public petting zoo.
(http://i.imgur.com/OHxPeHM.jpg)
Album here ---> http://imgur.com/a/5Sd3d
-
Ah, the Flogger. It really is an attractive aircraft, all its troubles aside, and I give it credit for having a REALLY straight wing at max extension. I'm more fond of its ground-attack incarnation, but the original Boom N' Zoom is still a lovely looking plane.
-
honestly i'm surprised the ground attack version, the MiG-27, stuck around as well as it did. i mean, the F-104 didn't exactly adapt to being a ground attack bird very well.
-
In fairness they did some moderate redesign for the -23 into the -27 that the Starfighter didn't get.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/MiG-27K_2008_G6.jpg/576px-MiG-27K_2008_G6.jpg)
Like the combo laser/camera system for dedicated ground-attack work, or the modifications to the engines for better sustained performance in the hot thick air of low altitude. There's also that six-barrel 30mm rotary brrrrrt-o-matic over the F-104's Vulcan...
-
Well if we are talking 60s, 70s & 80s jets then:
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Mirage-III-A3-73/Mirage_all_squadrons.sized.jpg)
Dassault Mirage IIIO, a variant of the Mirage IIIE assembled by the GAF in Australia with a different avionics installation.
In order from the foreground to the background of the photo are Mirage IIIOs from:
No 77 Squadron RAAF
No. 3 Squadron RAAF
No. 76 Squadron RAAF
No. 75 Squadron RAAF
2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF
Aircraft Research and Development Unit RAAF
-
I DON'T LIKE YOUR RUNWAAAAAAAAY
(http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/top/t/tor007.jpg)
-
honestly i'm surprised the ground attack version, the MiG-27, stuck around as well as it did. i mean, the F-104 didn't exactly adapt to being a ground attack bird very well.
The MiG-27's swing wings gave it decent slow/low performance, something the F-104 never had. Not fantastic, true, but definitely far from the worst.
-
Where was the 30mm on the Flogger-D mounted?
I DON'T LIKE YOUR RUNWAAAAAAAAY
(http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/top/t/tor007.jpg)
MW-1 on a Luftwaffe... Phantom?
-
It's a Panavia Tornado.
-
With a JP233 Low Altitude Airfield Attack System submunition dispenser. Carries a mix of two main types of submunition - a shaped charge for cratering concrete runways and an anti-personnel fragmentation for making life "interesting" for the airfield engineers trying to repair the damage.
-
PAK-FA has been officially named the SU-57. Low-rate production to commence with 12 aircraft by next year. No good new pics, so here's a repost:
(https://s26.postimg.org/itznw3zbt/sukhoi-pak-fa-su-57-1.jpg)
With a JP233...
that is not JP233, that is a German weapon.
-
it is a MW-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqCxCLKfGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1FyA-3wcBQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW-1
the Tornado was its original designed platform.. they later fit to the F-104 and F-4.
-
The MiG-27's swing wings gave it decent slow/low performance, something the F-104 never had. Not fantastic, true, but definitely far from the worst.
Ehhhhhhh. You'll almost never find pictures of 'Floggers' flying with wings at full forward sweep for good reason - the change in centre-of-gravity made it tricky and unsafe to fly in that configuration, so it was only used for take-off and landing.
The F-104's real issue was range. The tiny wings would have given it a much smoother ride at low altitude like when flying interdiction missions. Aircraft with low wing-loading suffer from much bumpier rides at when flying at low altitude with the attendant stresses on airframe, equipment, and pilot.
Also, I take issue with the A-10 being ugly. It may look archaic with its straight wings, tail configuration, and semi-retracted main gear, but it's neither asymmetrical nor particularly bizarre. The engine placement is the closest it gets to being weird.
Now the Bartini Beriev VVA-14 WiGE/ASW prototype, that was freakin' weird.
(https://hague6185.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bartini-beriev-vva-14-9.jpg)
(https://hague6185.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bartini-beriev-vva-14-4.jpg)
(https://hague6185.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bartini-beriev-vva-14-3.jpg)
(https://hague6185.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bartini-beriev-vva-14-10.jpg)
(https://hague6185.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bartini-beriev-vva-14-1.jpg)
(http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/bartini/vva/img/vva14-4.jpg)
(http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/bartini/vva/img/vva.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAk3kwXfEWk&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAk3kwXfEWk&feature=youtu.be)
Wonder if they've tried collecting on royalties from George Lucas...
-
well it was an experiment in a "flying WIGE".. an aircraft that could operate as both an amphibious aircraft, and a wing in ground effect vehicle. though as i understand it, it was most efficient working as a WIGE.
some of the proposed upgrades to the design were interesting.. such as adding lift-jet engines (likely similar to the Yak-38's, only far more of them) to give it VTOL capacity.
one of the ones they did try was:
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/54ca96abeab8eafd71b2c8a6-851-371/screen%20shot%202015-01-29%20at%203.21.09%20pm.png)
engines bracketing the cockpit, meant to help blow air under the central section during WIGE flight, giving it a shorter takeoff requirement.
-
that is not JP233, that is a German weapon.
it is a MW-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqCxCLKfGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1FyA-3wcBQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW-1
the Tornado was its original designed platform.. they later fit to the F-104 and F-4.
I stand corrected :-[
Similar nastiness for us airfield engineers with sub-munitions that made you wish you had taken the easy option and become a combat engineer trying to build a bridge while both sides were firing at you . . .
-
Well one way to avoid the nastiness of anti-runway and anti-recovery operation sub-munitions is not to need a runway . . .
The F-104 ZELL ("zero-length launch"), developed jointly by the Luftwaffe and manufacturer Lockheed.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*edppwHlZqebziesyQQr81Q.jpeg)
While the Brits were experimenting with the Harrier, the Germans decided to try launching a F-104 from an inclined launch platform using the combined thrust of the J79 turbojet engine and an underslung solid-fuel rocket motor. After trials at Edwards Air Force Base and in Bavaria, the Luftwaffe abandoned the project in 1966. I guess supplying all the Luftwaffe F-104 ZELL pilots with new brown underpants after each take-off was deemed to be cost prohibative.
-
Well one way to avoid the nastiness of anti-runway and anti-recovery operation sub-munitions is not to need a runway . . .
The F-104 ZELL ("zero-length launch"), developed jointly by the Luftwaffe and manufacturer Lockheed.
While the Brits were experimenting with the Harrier, the Germans decided to try launching a F-104 from an inclined launch platform using the combined thrust of the J79 turbojet engine and an underslung solid-fuel rocket motor. After trials at Edwards Air Force Base and in Bavaria, the Luftwaffe abandoned the project in 1966. I guess supplying all the Luftwaffe F-104 ZELL pilots with new brown underpants after each take-off was deemed to be cost prohibative.
and I like the assumption that in the event of 1960s WW3 in Europe, there wouldn't be anywhere to land that wasn't a smouldering radioactive ruin so why worry about the landings...
-
Mmmmm, WiGE... [drool]
I developed an unexplainable love for the concept while in college, which was only further nurtured by an instructor who found them interesting as well. That this concept never grabbed hold is strange- it was a victim of politics in the Soviet Union, but elsewhere it never caught on at all. The usefulness of such craft for things like coastal cargo-hauling, maritime SAR, anti-pirate surveillance, etc. are enormous, and while current aircraft can perform those roles as well there's still a market here. Think SAR- every minute counts in such a situation, and while a typical helicopter can move flat-out at around 180 mph give or take, a WiGE could more than double that- which means you're on-site to help people that much sooner, with no need to dangle a rescue swimmer or any of that- you can simply touch down on the water, even deploy a rescue boat if your design comes with such a thing.
As for cargo carrying, it's not going to do well on something like a trans-Atlantic route, due to the kind of high seas you get in open ocean, but in some areas it would be far more efficient than a standard airplane, and faster than a boat. For a few examples, think of island-heavy areas like Japan, Indonesia, and Greece, or coastlines that have ports and cities that could use fast trade capabilities- Italy, the North Sea, even the American east coast. A WiGE, by dint of its very capabilities, is more fuel-efficient than a similar-design airplane (because it doesn't expend energy on lifting to altitude, and because the air cushion under the wing helps move it along easier), while losing only a little speed- and of course, while a standard cargo ship isn't going to make better than, say, 25 knots-ish on average, a WiGE is several times faster. It's less cargo capacity, but for some jobs (say, FedEx style deliveries) it would be a game-changing concept in terms of speed and cost-effectiveness.
Even patrol operations, although there we start getting more into military applications... much like the SAR role, you're much faster than a helicopter, which means upon detecting a problem you can be on-station much faster. We've seen Soviet WiGEs carry weaponry, and while the Lun's cruise missiles are a bit more than we'd need here other craft carried things like twin-mount 23mm cannons in a dorsal turret- plenty to cause problems for a pirate craft. In conjunction with recon assets such as drones, a patrol-WiGE could rapidly and efficiently meet threats and deal with them easier and safer than a helicopter or patrol boat could manage.
Anyway. Yeah, big fan of the idea, particularly in the civilian market. And to keep this from being nothing but a wall-o-text post, here's the famed 'Caspian Sea Monster' at speed.
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SiO0RD9AhkI/AAAAAAABCEo/UzsdkLfcruU/s800/1.jpg)
-
The Lun
-
And to complete the hat trick: the A-90 Orlyonok
(https://orig15.deviantart.net/def6/f/2015/164/1/2/ekranoplan_a_90_orlyonok__september_28__1993_year_by_aydren-d8x4ihe.jpg)
-
I think one of the items in any random aviation pictures thread bingo should involve the time it takes to post Russian WiGEs again. ;)
-
I think one of the items in any random aviation pictures thread bingo should involve the time it takes to post Russian WiGEs again. ;)
Does the American/Boeing WiGE count?????
-
And to complete the hat trick: the A-90 Orlyonok
(https://orig15.deviantart.net/def6/f/2015/164/1/2/ekranoplan_a_90_orlyonok__september_28__1993_year_by_aydren-d8x4ihe.jpg)
Case in point for the patrol craft I envisioned- right above/behind the cockpit area is that twin-23mm mount, which should be plenty to deal with most unarmored craft like the average pirate vessel (or, in case it's needed for the job, captured vessel that ends up being felt is better on the bottom than in pirate hands). Circle the target AC-130 style, or even make fast slashing passes the way a Battletech WiGE is forced to, and rake them with 23mm fire- or whatever you brought to the party, for that matter. A gunship WiGE could do worse than the 25mm cannon from the M2 Bradley, for example, or even the classic 20mm Vulcan. Tougher prey could even earn something like a Hellfire from over-wing or VLS body mounts.
I think one of the items in any random aviation pictures thread bingo should involve the time it takes to post Russian WiGEs again. ;)
Ekranoplan means never having to say you're sorry. >:D
-
As for cargo carrying, it's not going to do well on something like a trans-Atlantic route, due to the kind of high seas you get in open ocean, but in some areas it would be far more efficient than a standard airplane, and faster than a boat. For a few examples, think of island-heavy areas like Japan, Indonesia, and Greece, or coastlines that have ports and cities that could use fast trade capabilities- Italy, the North Sea, even the American east coast. A WiGE, by dint of its very capabilities, is more fuel-efficient than a similar-design airplane (because it doesn't expend energy on lifting to altitude, and because the air cushion under the wing helps move it along easier), while losing only a little speed- and of course, while a standard cargo ship isn't going to make better than, say, 25 knots-ish on average, a WiGE is several times faster. It's less cargo capacity, but for some jobs (say, FedEx style deliveries) it would be a game-changing concept in terms of speed and cost-effectiveness.
how would they fair in the Baltic?
and i would have assuemd the north sea would be a no-go, because of the frequent bad sea conditions and weather.
-
how would they fair in the Baltic?
and i would have assuemd the north sea would be a no-go, because of the frequent bad sea conditions and weather.
WiGEs fare better over calmer water- the more even the water, the easier it is to hold that cushion of air under the wings. I'm not sure how rough the Baltic gets on average compared to something like the North Atlantic, but at least for scooting along the coasts it should work. (North Sea, yeah, forget it.)
-
WiGEs fare better over calmer water- the more even the water, the easier it is to hold that cushion of air under the wings. I'm not sure how rough the Baltic gets on average compared to something like the North Atlantic, but at least for scooting along the coasts it should work. (North Sea, yeah, forget it.)
Seems the Great Lakes would be near perfect. Or for that matter, polar excursions.
-
Seems the Great Lakes would be near perfect. Or for that matter, polar excursions.
Great Lakes, huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8FaotwbMdw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8FaotwbMdw)
WiGEs suffer from many of the same limitations as seaplanes or flying boats - note that other than the lack of passengers, the Beriev prototype I linked earlier would be considered a Type C GEV by the International Maritime Organization - AKA, an aircraft.
They don't handle rough seas well, and to add insult to injury, the nature of their design means most of them won't be able to avoid weather by flying over it - a weakness they share with lighter-than-air vehicles. In most cases where you'd want to use a WiGE, you'd be better off going with a conventional aircraft or ship.
Unfortunately, WiGEs fall into the same category as airships, flying boats, hydrofoils, hovercraft, V/STOL jets, supersonic airliners, and in some ways, even catamarans and trimarans - the gains are in performance are largely offset by the trade-offs to the degree that they are only practical in specific niche roles compared to the general flexibility and efficiency of say... large monohull ships, and swept-wing twin-jets
-
Play COUNT THE HINDS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq45N0Jm1KY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq45N0Jm1KY)
Seriously that looks like a whole bloody airmobile brigade on the move; that's a terrifying thing to see coming in anyone's direction.
-
I believe the term is "target-rich environment!"
-
what were the other choppers in the back? Mi-17's?
also, you have to love how one movie produced a single scene that has almost become a meme unto itself..
-
That was epic and intimidating at the same time
-
Affirmative, appear to be Mil Mi-17 Hip
(https://i0.wp.com/www.aeroresource.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/kecskemet-airshow-hungary-mi-17-hip_2.jpg)
-
Is that a crop duster?
-
Is that a crop duster?
I think so. I can't think of any good reason a Hip couldn't carry anti-tank missiles like the old AT-6, but I can't think of a reason they WOULD either. Cropdusting mounts though, that seems plausible- only problem then is the camo scheme, which doesn't seem like would jive with being glorified farm equipment.
-
Given there was a period where many Aeroflot airliners had tail gun turret positions, minus the guns; given many recruits did mandatory "field exercises" during harvest time to help out the collective farms; and a bunch of similar bleedovers, camo on a cropduster isn't a problem at all ;)
-
I think so. I can't think of any good reason a Hip couldn't carry anti-tank missiles like the old AT-6, but I can't think of a reason they WOULD either. Cropdusting mounts though, that seems plausible- only problem then is the camo scheme, which doesn't seem like would jive with being glorified farm equipment.
they are Missile and/or rocket pod mounts. as this Polish example shows.
(https://img.planespotters.net/photo/414000/original/6112-poland-army-mil-mi-17-1v-hip_PlanespottersNet_414857.jpg)
basically equivalent to the Gunship Huey's from Vietnam. or the pylon equipped UH-60's the Army and Special Forces use.
(http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2015/10/31/629824.jpg)
the USarmy mostly uses them to mount extra fuel tanks, but they can be configured with missiles and rockets for an attack role.
(http://www.airforceworld.com/heli/gfx/uh60_2.jpg)
-
(http://img.gagdaily.com/uploads/posts/fact/2013/0000e44e_big.jpg)
-
Now there's a plane that a lot of people in my area would be happy to see.
-
Downunder, the fire authorities prefer the rotary wing varieties. The first time they were used in anger in the 2001 fire season, "Elvis" (N179AC) made an appearance, saving lives and homes in Sydney.
(http://www.helistart.com/pictures/Sikorsky-S64.jpg)
The Australian media and public have held a special place for the Erickson Sky-Crane ever since
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/df/d3/93/dfd3938a919d4b61357885a64da4b007--fire-dept-fire-department.jpg)
The Rural Fire Service and RAAF Base Glenbrook (in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney) developed a close relationship during these fire seasons (a number of us Air Force officers and airmen trained in bushfire fighting with the local Glenbrook Rural Fire Service) and for a number of fire seasons the aerial and ground firefighting assets were based out of the RAAF Base Glenbrook. The Sky Cranes were too big to fit on the helipad, so they used the football field instead.
Here is Elvis being refuelled on the football field at RAAF Base Glenbrook.
(http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry3/doc/ComponentReference/images/elvis.jpg)
-
If you're gonna do something, go big or go home.
(https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/07/17/db367aab-79dc-4379-ad09-1436e8e2bdfc/resize/620x/88bf8bb559f1df1346fc8cf47f842bdf/global-supertanker-water-drop-620.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/69/f7/4a/69f74a7e067fdf31450ac721fd1b16a5--tanker-the-california.jpg)
Big can be useful but the helicopters can be based closer to the firefront and therefore the refill and transit times are signficantly reduced (especially when they can use residential swimming pools to refill).
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/22/article-2400228-1B6A0F1B000005DC-207_634x449.jpg)
-
Jeeze, that wall-o-Hinds was spectacular and terrifying, especially if you happened to be in NATO and was hiding in a firing trench somewhere in West Germany if things had gone wrong at any point in the 70's or 80's.
And yep the Helo's behind are Mil-Mi-17's, I gave up trying to count but that did look like a Regiment's worth of Hinds on the move if not more, not sure of Soviet doctrine at the time but I do recall reading that Hinds were meant to be deployed en-mass.
-
Play COUNT THE HINDS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq45N0Jm1KY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq45N0Jm1KY)
Seriously that looks like a whole bloody airmobile brigade on the move; that's a terrifying thing to see coming in anyone's direction.
Lord, for a Shilka...! Or maybe a Flakpanzer
-
Lord, for a Shilka...! Or maybe a Flakpanzer
Or just a straight-up mechanized air-defense battalion...
-
Or a batch of apache longbows with Hellfires from hiding and out of range
-
A waste of Hellfires much better saved for the supporting tanks and APCs.
Infantry with Stingers O0
-
hellfires are terrible at anti-air. Stingers, or Sidewinders.
formation liek that though is going ot require a lot of firepower though.. most ground based anti-air wouldn't be able to shoot down more than a couple before they chew it up with rockets and cannon.. and you'd need nearly as many chopper or planes to try and handle it with mobile air defense
-
Granted it'd kind of be a waste to dump this many AIM-120s at it, there is at least this solution.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1427441622976745031.png)And you'd still need a LOT of them...
-
Granted it'd kind of be a waste to dump this many AIM-120s at it, there is at least this solution.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1427441622976745031.png)And you'd still need a LOT of them...
Its only 2 more then this FA-18.
-
There are actually 16 on that F-15 (well, 14 AMRAAM + 2 Sidewinder I think). the quad mount on the other wing is mostly obscured...
-
Sixteen -120s. There's an extra pair on outer wing stations which isn't shown there, plus the four AIM-9s. Come a long way since the two AIM-7/two AIM-9 combo on the early Phantoms, haven't we.
-
Sixteen -120s. There's an extra pair on outer wing stations which isn't shown there, plus the four AIM-9s. Come a long way since the two AIM-7/two AIM-9 combo on the early Phantoms, haven't we.
And unlike the Sparrow, these will actually have a chance in hell of hitting a target!
-
And unlike the Sparrow, these will actually have a chance in hell of hitting a target!
At least they had solutions for that back in the day.
(http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1460/52/1460524276910.jpg)
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
-
Sixteen -120s. There's an extra pair on outer wing stations which isn't shown there, plus the four AIM-9s. Come a long way since the two AIM-7/two AIM-9 combo on the early Phantoms, haven't we.
I see 14 AIM120s (assuming symmetry) and 2 AIM9s in the F-15 pic.
Talk about maximum anti-air...
-
If they fly in such tight formation, doesn't that make them vulnerable to a well-aimed barrage by artillery with proximity fuses?
-
At least they had solutions for that back in the day.
(http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1460/52/1460524276910.jpg)
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
Unfortunately, the gun pods were hideously inaccurate as well.
-
If they fly in such tight formation, doesn't that make them vulnerable to a well-aimed barrage by artillery with proximity fuses?
It would be much easier to wait for them to land and begin unloading troops to purposefully engage them with artillery.
-
JTACs overlooking the LZ FTW!
-
Unfortunately, the gun pods were hideously inaccurate as well.
With the combined rate of fire being in the 30,000rpm range for the left one and up to 90,000rpm for the right...yeah, I don't mind some inaccuracy.
-
It would be much easier to wait for them to land and begin unloading troops to purposefully engage them with artillery.
Grid square removal system? sorry, MLRS
-
Grid square removal system? sorry, MLRS
Yup.
-
Unfortunately, the gun pods were hideously inaccurate as well.
If you want improved acccuracy from those mini-gun pods then change the platform, go for a more stable firing platform like a Douglas AC-47 Spooky (aka Puff the Magic Dragon):
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/spooky-ac47-gunship-9.jpg)
-
(http://pn.vwp.su/img_set22/11_5564765v54.jpg)
-
Pictured: The only thing that has more trouble making tight turns than the train those tracks are supposed to handle.
(Seriously, fast as hell and amazing climbing, but the Foxbat needed most of Siberia to turn a 180.)
-
Blocked at work :(
The Foxbat was a brilliant piece of Soviet engineering (with all the caveats implied), which met the specifications required.
The Tumansky engines deserve to be immortalised for their tendency to overspeed, which also rendered them incapable of being throttled down. Dos vidanya, Rodina!
-
Pictured: The only thing that has more trouble making tight turns than the train those tracks are supposed to handle.
(Seriously, fast as hell and amazing climbing, but the Foxbat needed most of Siberia to turn a 180.)
Actually that's a MiG-31 Foxhound in the photo
-
The Tumansky engines deserve to be immortalised for their tendency to overspeed, which also rendered them incapable of being throttled down. Dos vidanya, Rodina!
Do wait, what? If they go too fast, they can't be slowed down until the fuel is gone? :o
-
Yuppers. Famous case was the Egyptian Mig-25R that went full power, and hit Mach 3.2. Ended up burning its own engines out.
Fortunately, the Foxbat was otherwise reliable (again, usual caveats applied). And the wing loading wasn't that bad, which would have helped with a deadstick landing. Soviet landing gear design also probably helped.
-
basically if they stayed at above mach 2.6 for too long, they were pushing the engines harder than ever intended, and the fans would be turning so fast that simple inertia kept them moving.. which means that you lost control of the throttle, and they'd keep turning at that speed until fuel ran out. which basically meant that your engines could be running (which meant you kept accelerating) or you turned the fuel flow off entirely. (on a plane with all the glide properties of a brick)
there was also the problem that by the time you hit overspeed condition, your engines were dangerously close to overheating.. so not only would you keep accelerating, you might explode.
it's what you get when you use a pair of engines originally meant for supersonic cruise missiles to power an interceptor.
-
Is crowbar to get plane round corners comrade. Put in emergency kit.
-
Didn't the Tumanskys also have a problem of so much airflow they started tearing parts out of the inlets and ingesting them?
-
the fans would be turning so fast that simple inertia kept them moving.. which means that you lost control of the throttle, and they'd keep turning at that speed until fuel ran out
In Soviet Russia, jets fly pilot!
-
This is dedication:
https://youtu.be/XYD4IEd3zP0 (https://youtu.be/XYD4IEd3zP0)
(https://www.flyingwithspitfires.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/13687301_316699442011783_2080393471_n.jpg)
And for those who do not have a broadband connection:
It’s one thing to build a model airplane as a kid, but to recreate an entire World War II fighter plane (that flies!) piece by piece? That’s some real DIY magic. When Martin Phillips, an English tool shop owner, received a single rivet from a WWII Spitfire as a 40th birthday gift, it changed his life. His challenge: to rebuild the iconic aircraft from the one piece. Amazingly, he did it. It took him 14 years and a million pounds, but Phillips scoured the world for spare Spitfire parts, machined ones that no longer existed and even found an old wing rusting behind a pub. The Spitfire is the ultimate symbol of Britain’s war effort, and Martin has been keeping the legend alive since his plane’s maiden voyage in 2013.
-
Kudos to Mr. Phillips
And here's a longer film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUkQ__ukTBM
-
The second's one longer, but the first one has the best line: "...I'm a Spitfire pilot" (around 2:10).
-
This is still my favourite Spitfire youtube clip of all time:
https://youtu.be/4iOoiEbtf2w (https://youtu.be/4iOoiEbtf2w)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/71/4c/fb/714cfb981d511ac09d8bf477c91b5981.jpg)
-
Two Thunderbolts flying together so very awesome!
-
Two Thunderbolts flying together so very awesome!
Really brings the scale home as to how much larger military aircraft have become. There was a picture on one of the aviation threads that had the F-15 and the P-51, you could fit 3 P-51s on a F-15. That to say noting of the SU-27 family.
-
Heritage Flights make for great visuals, IMO.
(https://media.defense.gov/2006/May/15/2000556908/-1/-1/0/060513-F-0558K-001.JPG)
(http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/160304-F-JP000-625-copy.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/160305-F-LW859-013-copy.jpg)
-
Love legacy flights!
-
What you mean like this?
(http://pete-n-pam.com/misc%20items%20pics/temora%20airshow%20pics/air-to-air%20pic.jpg)
-
As good a place as any for this. Space X release their Falcon rocket landing blooper reel:
https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ (https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ)
"Try to keep your number of landings equal to your take-offs" and
"Any landing you walk away from is a good landing"
-
"It's not an explosion!"
(random burning bit spirals off under thrust ...)
-
That is an example of why I keep coming here... ;D
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/71/4c/fb/714cfb981d511ac09d8bf477c91b5981.jpg)
That is my new desktop wallpaper on my work computer...
Ruger
-
As good a place as any for this. Space X release their Falcon rocket landing blooper reel:
https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ (https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ)
"Try to keep your number of landings equal to your take-offs" and
"Any landing you walk away from is a good landing"
You gotta love a launch company with a sense of humor about the success ratios you'll find early in any launch program... ;D
-
As good a place as any for this. Space X release their Falcon rocket landing blooper reel:
https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ (https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ)
"Try to keep your number of landings equal to your take-offs" and
"Any landing you walk away from is a good landing"
The lack of Michael Palin is inexcusable.
Meanwhile in Syria (Deir ez-Zor):
(https://pp.userapi.com/c836527/v836527400/5f3c1/kEIQlDxSGS0.jpg)
-
What you mean like this?
(http://pete-n-pam.com/misc%20items%20pics/temora%20airshow%20pics/air-to-air%20pic.jpg)
That photo is such a awesome photo!
-
I've heard of muzzle flash, but this is ridiculous
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a7818d5067fd97a1e0e0cf4838773c063aff1644f59b8ca912d8f4a41d1c425c.gif)
-
Not just flash, but kick- look at the nose drop from that burst! That's a big, heavy, and absurdly-stable helicopter, and that burst is still enough to drop the nose a good, what, 15 degrees-ish? Woof.
Pilots were mixed at first about losing the turret-mounted gatling from earlier models when the Mi-24E debuted, but it's safe to say that the twin-barrel Gsh 23mm has proven itself to be a big-time upgrade. After all, the Hind can't really hover anyway- so it has to make fighter jet style strafing runs on targets as it is. Why not just strap on a fighter jet's gun (it really is the same one many Mikoyan and Sukhoi designs mount) and start strafing?
-
Not just flash, but kick- look at the nose drop from that burst! That's a big, heavy, and absurdly-stable helicopter, and that burst is still enough to drop the nose a good, what, 15 degrees-ish? Woof.
Pilots were mixed at first about losing the turret-mounted gatling from earlier models when the Mi-24E debuted, but it's safe to say that the twin-barrel Gsh 23mm has proven itself to be a big-time upgrade. After all, the Hind can't really hover anyway- so it has to make fighter jet style strafing runs on targets as it is. Why not just strap on a fighter jet's gun (it really is the same one many Mikoyan and Sukhoi designs mount) and start strafing?
Well, having a turret allow for an arc of fire field. It may not hover, but it doesn't need to in order to shoot targets to the side.
-
In fairness the difference between the turret and the fixed twin-gun should also have this fact highlighted: the YAK-B is a .50 caliber machine gun, the one you see there? That's a 30mm GSh-30K. There's a reason she's swinging around so much under recoil.
-
Is that the same gun that used to make the Mig-23 flame out? :o
-
It doesn't help that the GSh-30 is pretty absurdly powerful as aircraft cannons go.
-
Is that the same gun that used to make the Mig-23 flame out? :o
Nah, that's the six-barrel GSh-6-30 rotary. Apparently it's got a brutal vibration as well, and as it's a 30x165mm cartridge at up to 6000rpm; I'm seriously Not Surprised(TM) at that.
-
Is that the same gun that used to make the Mig-23 flame out? :o
Not exactly, that's the GSh-30-6 Gatling. Fires the same round though.
Went to the Oceania airshow today. Learned that at some point they started putting crazy 8-blade props on the Hawkeyes.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/305381main_EC04-0310-06_full.jpg)
-
I believe the 8 scimitar blades were installed in the early-noughties (aka 2000s).
-
(http://www.cap-ny153.org/E2%20Hawkeye%20Prop%2002.jpg)
the new props were added in 2004, they're more vibration resistant, the individual blades can be removed for repair instead of having to remove the entire prop+hub each time, and the curve makes them more efficient at higher rotational speeds. they're carbon fiber with steel leading edges.
they got refitted to all the E-2C's in service, and were included from the start on the E-2D just now entering service.
-
Nah, that's the six-barrel GSh-6-30 rotary. Apparently it's got a brutal vibration as well, and as it's a 30x165mm cartridge at up to 6000rpm; I'm seriously Not Surprised(TM) at that.
The GSh-30-6 turned out to be a rare case of having too much Dakka
-
So was the abortive attempt to mount a shrunk down GAU-8 Avenger (the GAU-13) in a pod (the GPU-5) and hang it on an F-16 to replace the A-10.
The GAU-13 cannon itself was a shortened pneumatic-powered, four-barreled version of the Warthog's giant seven barreled GAU-8 Avenger cannon. Because of its modular format, overall size and weight limitations, the GPU-5 had a rate of fire of about half that of the GAU-8, or about 2,400 rounds per minute. All ammunition was carried internally in the pod, of which could hold 353 rounds.
(http://firearmsworld.net/usa/mg/vulcan/p0504741.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/jpuhtw43zgtl8t4wvbka.jpg)
Precision fire was almost impossible with the setup as the F-16s software had not been adequately modified for aiming, and the vibration was so bad when the gun was fired that software tweaks probably would have made little difference anyway and it wreaked havoc on the F-16's sensitive electronics and mechanical components. The system was so ill-suited to the aircraft that just firing the gun multiple times would deform the pylon it is attached to and thus it would become skewed far off zero.
-
... crazy 8-blade props...
My interest in Aviation wanes heavily after WWII. What's the deal with these props? As a kid I always wondered about my GI-JOE Mudfighter ...
(http://www.yojoe.com/images/resize/w/MAX/imagestore/2442/79104.jpg)
-
A simple explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar_propeller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar_propeller)
-
The ANG has this to say about them (https://polarfieldservice.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/ang-test-flights-propel-polar-airlift-potential/):
“During the week of 27-31 July, the 109th continued test flights with the 8-blade NP2000 propeller. The program consisted of two trips to Summit and one to Raven Camp. At each place, we conducted a series of take-offs at various weights both on the skiways and in the open snow. While we are still reducing the data, we can say that we set an unofficial take-off record at Summit: 143,000 lbs, -11 deg C – with an 18kt tailwind! Granted the snow was quite good, and the skiway in great shape, but no one expected a successful take-off under those conditions. The whole crew was surprised. We even took off from Summit open snow at 113,000 lbs; under normal conditions, that would have been impossible even with JATO.
https://polarfieldservice.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/july-30-09-skier-92dyesiteedstockard.jpg
Ed Stockard shot this photo of Skier 92 at Raven Camp. Dye 2, rear, was part of the Distant Early Warning System radar sites established across the Arctic during the cold war, and it is located about 1 mile from Raven.
“The NP2000 propeller offers reduced vibration, noise and maintenance costs, while increasing thrust. The absolute amount of increased thrust is still being determined. However, in our subjective opinion, it offers much better performance for ski take-offs. Our intent is to eventually equip all LC-130s with the NP2000 to increase our cargo-carrying capability while reducing the use of JATO.”
-
That GI Joe Mudfighter reminds me of the Devestator Fighter from Crimson Skies. The pusher prop with the big wing in the back.
-
It was probably part of the inspiration.
-
I think it's mainly from a Boulton Paul project P.100 for the specification that eventually resulted in the Sea Fury.
-
In 1940 two Avro Ansons were involved in a midair collision. The planes hit hard enough that they stuck together.
The pilot & navigator of the lower plane, and the navigator of the upper plane, baled out.
The pilot of the upper plane managed to fly the joined planes several miles clear of the town and successfully belly-land them in a field!
-
Foolish humans, aircraft manufacturing does not work that way. GOOD NIGHT!
-
Ah... that's how Lancasters were made at that time [blank] >:D. Awesome pictures BTW
-
Newly released pictures of Northrop Grumman's ill-fated T-X contender, the Model 400:
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2017-09-22-at-08.07.38-768x501.png)
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2017-09-22-at-08.07.30-768x497.png)
-
have they picked the T-x winner yet?
the other contestants:
Boeing/SAAB
(http://saabgroup.com/globalassets/cision/images/20161220-en-2412007-.jpg)(https://www.theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Boeing-Saab-T-X.jpg)
Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/lockheed/us/news/press-releases/2016/july/T-50A2FirstFlight/_jcr_content/center_content/image.img.jpg/1472757058856.jpg)(https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/04/20/104415302-Lockheed_Shoot_009.720x405.jpg?v=1492697231)
-
You forgot the Leonardo T-100, but it's Russian roots make it a long shot at best.
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/03/drs-image-13_11-039ita_100913_0179_170314_v05_simplified_1920x1080-768x432.jpeg)
Personally, I think Boeing will win. It's their turn. Lockheed Martin is already in the fast jet business with the F-35. Boeing will be out of it soon as F-15 and F-18 orders are drying up, and Northrop Grumman has been out of it for years. Northrop Grumman and Boeing both had about a 50/50 shot at winning until Northrop Grumman got the B-21. Notice Northrop Grumman withdrew from T-X around the same time. I'm convinced that if Boeing got the B-21 contract, Northrop Grumman would have won the T-X.
-
Farewell C-5A.
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/09/8-768x513.jpg)
The USAF’s last C-5A Galaxy departed Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts, en route to Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, on September 7. Serial 70-0461 will be placed in storage with the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) alongside 56 Galaxies that have been delivered to the Tucson base since 2011.
The Galaxy had seen more than 44 years of service and flown more than 22,500 flight hours.
-
A 40 year old plane that had 22500 hours on it. My airline has planes with 45k hours on them and not even 13 years old yet.
-
There's less need for a C-5 than there is for a Boeing 747.
-
Wow, you can stick an Abrams in a Globemaster III. Guess the C-5 isn't as big a deal as I'd thought it was, still a shame to see such a legendary bird go.
-
There's less need for a C-5 than there is for a Boeing 747.
And that is not a bad thing . . . 8)
Also, do not forget that B747s are only making money for the airline when they are flying.
While the last C-5A has been retired to the boneyard, the C-5M Super Galaxy (upgraded C-5Bs/C-5Cs with glass cockpit and new more powerful engines) will continue to fly the flag.
(http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2012/5/6/208651.jpg)
-
And that is not a bad thing . . . 8)
Also, do not forget that B747s are only making money for the airline when they are flying.
While the last C-5A has been retired to the boneyard, the C-5M Super Galaxy (upgraded C-5Bs/C-5Cs with glass cockpit and new more powerful engines) will continue to fly the flag.
(http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2012/5/6/208651.jpg)
And they will fly is the key point. Have a close friend from college who flew C-5s out of California and Delaware, he said the older ones would frequently get grounded due to maintenance issues.
-
The GSh-30-6 turned out to be a rare case of having too much Dakka
jejejeje, you never get such thigs as "too much Dakka". :P
-
jejejeje, you never get such thigs as "too much Dakka". :P
When the recoil from the gun is damazing the airframe, you do
-
When the recoil from the gun is damazing the airframe, you do
*Channel his inner Ork* Then you just put more scrap over it, or salvage another frame!
-
The October issue of the French magazine Fana de l'aviation had this very nice double page photo of Doc and Fifi flying in formation above Oshkosh...
-
I'm stunned... While watching a completely unrelated YouTube video, I got a video ad from Boeing of all companies. And what were they advertising? Of all things, how environmentally friendly their new B-52 engine is! I still haven't processed the multiple levels of cognitive dissonance this has caused, to the point I haven't even finished my steak yet! :o
-
well, i guess it is all relative. and the B52 is old enough it probably needs all the help it can get.
(still, gotta be better than all the political ads i have to sit through.. ugh. the less said about them the better.. and not just because of forum rules.)
-
Here is one of my favorites. I’ve probably shown it before and probably will again. The Rutan Boomerang:
(http://stargazer2006.online.fr/aircraft/thumbs/boomerang09.jpg)
An investigation into an efficient twin engine design with better performance than a Beech Baron (he must not like Beechcraft for some reason, hmm, wonder why). But he always does that. The notable part is a weirdly asymmetrical aircraft that will still balance flight forces if either engine goes out.
To my knowledge, this means it is the only twin *not* to have a Vmc speed and not be a push/pull aircraft like the Cessna Skymaster.
-
Coincidentally, I was driving by the local municipal airport today and saw a Skymaster on the tarmac.
-
Watching the trail a -52 leaves as it flies past? I'm all for replacing the old coal-fired engines. (After all, the aircraft itself is irreplaceable at this point!)
-
There have been studies about replacing the B-52's eight coal-burners with four high-bypass turbofans, but it comes down to the cost of recertifying, apparently.
Tests have been done with a C-17 engine:
(http://i27.tinypic.com/20jju5c.jpg)
But alas, this is imaginary.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--qRgu1S-F--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/fbxu5nazwzgjk7dzgifo.jpg)
-
And I'm not sure what this is meant to be (apart from a hoax), but Wierdo wants ten in 1:285 scale
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/T2BBBwr2zEE/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
I'm stunned... While watching a completely unrelated YouTube video, I got a video ad from Boeing of all companies. And what were they advertising? Of all things, how environmentally friendly their new B-52 engine is! I still haven't processed the multiple levels of cognitive dissonance this has caused, to the point I haven't even finished my steak yet! :o
Frickin' Google, man, my friend sent me a sushi dinner coupon and I googled it ONCE. The next couple of hours my ad sidebars were full of F&B coupons from the same website.
IINM, weren't the B-52 engines the first to get certified for the DoD's biofuel mix...?
-
And I'm not sure what this is meant to be (apart from a hoax), but Wierdo wants ten in 1:285 scale
Some CGI plane crash video from Russia, apparently. There's a very short (15 seconds or so) shot of it flying, turning, and suffering the same fate as the '94 B-52 crash at Fairchild.
-
There have been studies about replacing the B-52's eight coal-burners with four high-bypass turbofans, but it comes down to the cost of recertifying, apparently.
Honestly, at this point it would probably be easier to fit a bomb bay to a 777, than to try to replace the engines on a B-52 with modern, high bypass turbofans. Much as I respect those old birds, there is so very much in their design that could stand to be updated, that it probably makes sense to generally leave them alone till they fall apart. Save the money to convert a cargo design into a new bomb truck, and let the stealth stuff handle any nuke triad duties.
-
And I'm not sure what this is meant to be (apart from a hoax), but Wierdo wants ten in 1:285 scale
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/T2BBBwr2zEE/maxresdefault.jpg)
That looks like the Megafortress from the novels by Dan Brown
-
And I'm not sure what this is meant to be (apart from a hoax), but Wierdo wants ten in 1:285 scale
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/T2BBBwr2zEE/maxresdefault.jpg)
He's not wrong... :)
(Fortunately(or not, depending on who you ask) I already have suitable proxies for Torrents. Gotta tell you, it took a while to get used to seeing B-1Bs with Marian markings...)
-
A An-225 with a bunch more engines and canards.
-
I think one issue with the B-52 is that the ground clearance for the wings limits the size of the replacement engines. Check out the wing droop on a fully fueled BUFF. Those outriggers aren't there for show
-
I think one issue with the B-52 is that the ground clearance for the wings limits the size of the replacement engines. Check out the wing droop on a fully fueled BUFF. Those outriggers aren't there for show
Oh for sure. Then again, if we're doing a refit on the engines to keep 60-odd-year-old planes flying for another few decades (and it's a good idea to), might as well do a full mid-life upgrade (yes, that's tongue-in-cheek). The A-6 got new wings just prior to their sudden retirement- why not the BUFF? Newer materials used in the primary wing spar not only would lighten the airframe but strengthen it as well, getting rid of the droop- now your wings can handle bigger engine nacelles. Between the new spars and stronger engines, you might even be able to increase the underwing payload.
Dale Brown be damned, I'm not looking to do his stupid Megafortress thing here and add AAMs, a pointy nose, Klingon disruptors and all that crap. But if these are going to fly for another 30 years or so, it's time to give them the overhaul they need to do it. New wings and new engines are the least one could do here.
-
That big engine that was attached to the B52 was for a early model 747. A engine that is a little larger then the engine that would replace. The engine would replace is the same as on the C17 and the 757. It is quiet and more efficient and newer so easier to fix and get parts for.
-
Dale Brown be damned, I'm not looking to do his stupid Megafortress thing here and add AAMs, a pointy nose.
See B-1R concept, just about a Megafortress, just with smoother Lines.
-
the BUFFs are useful like an old car is - because it'd cost you a lot more to get a brand new vehicle to run about in. Putting anything new on the BUFFs would first require serious cost-benefit analysis. They are the lo part of a hi-lo bomber force. So while they're still excellent (and cheap!) at doing all the workhorse stuff, the most important missions are probably going to go to Bones, Spirits and the new B-3s.
-
California National Guard C-130 MAFFS (Modular Airborne FireFighting System) Air Attack over Northern California
(https://i.imgur.com/BBwXvON.jpg)
-
have they picked the T-x winner yet?
the other contestants:
Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/lockheed/us/news/press-releases/2016/july/T-50A2FirstFlight/_jcr_content/center_content/image.img.jpg/1472757058856.jpg)(https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/04/20/104415302-Lockheed_Shoot_009.720x405.jpg?v=1492697231)
My wife was actually involved in the T-50 program before Pratt & Whitney moved their APU production.
-
California National Guard C-130 MAFFS (Modular Airborne FireFighting System) Air Attack over Northern California
(https://i.imgur.com/BBwXvON.jpg)
The best kind of close air support! :D
-
The California Guard performs the wildlands firefighting mission with gusto. They nearly lost one of those hot pink painted Black Hawks last year. Maybe they figure the firestorms aren't as accurate as terrorist RPG teams.
Don't forget to pack in some lunch.
(https://i.imgur.com/IeTidqW.png)
And an extra set of eyes couldn't hurt.
(https://i.imgur.com/eNhhLwL.png)
Although a quick peek by the food truck might do in a pinch.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZYJdAbP.png)
Team Hot Pink Squadron is on the job.
-
Nice, I assume that they do that with Plasti Dip or another removable paint, so it can be easily washed off with a high pressure washer.
Aviation types are smart enough to always pack an esky or portable fridge. An old boss of mine used to fly Chinooks in the 70s and 80s and he would tell stories of carrying a second-hand bar fridge in the back and a portable generator so that they could have cold drinks at the bivouac.
-
all this talk of close air support reminded me of these...
for those of you unaware, the real British sense of humour is vicious and sarcastic
-
The last one is SO Through the Ages! Thought it should have been Napoleon in the foreground. ;D
-
all this talk of close air support reminded me of these...
for those of you unaware, the real British sense of humour is vicious and sarcastic
We prefer to think of it as just funny :D
With a decent line in sarcasm
-
My wife was actually involved in the T-50 program before Pratt & Whitney moved their APU production.
I expect this aircraft to be the winner as it is a proven airframe and is in service in several air forces in one form or another
-
We prefer to think of it as just funny :D
With a decent line in sarcasm
shhhh
you'll confuse the septic tanks
-
Love that F14!
-
I didn't know Chuck Norris fought in the American Civil War :P
-
I didn't know Chuck N >:(orris fought in the American Civil War :P
I suspect General Sherman is the granddaddy of CHuck Norris.
-
Back on topic, have a Rafale M!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dVSDpz3gijY/UkrwyEEUSqI/AAAAAAAAp5E/19Pfgd6SKFU/s640/Revell+Rafale+M+Review+(10).jpg)
-
Scaled Composites flew its Model 401 experimental prototype aircraft for the first time on 11 October.
The single-seat single-engined aircraft is one of two that have been built to demonstrate advanced, low-cost manufacturing techniques and provide aircraft for research flight services.
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/843/74843/1711686_-_main.jpg)
-
Back on topic, have a Rafale M!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dVSDpz3gijY/UkrwyEEUSqI/AAAAAAAAp5E/19Pfgd6SKFU/s640/Revell+Rafale+M+Review+(10).jpg)
Gah! Someone, PLEASE, figure out how to make that stupid refueling probe retractable! You want to use probe-and-drogue, I get it. Fine, but pretty please get rid of these hideous snorkels sticking out of these beautiful planes! I think the Rafale is generally a beautiful object, and even the ordnance under the wings doesn't change that. The big bendy-straw appendage growing out of its nose? Yuck!
-
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either, but it's hardly the only- or even worst-offender in that regard. The A-4, A-6, Etendard, CH-53, all have that odd quirk going for them. I suppose there's something to be said for not having it fold inward (and thus not requiring a hinge that could jam up or something like that), but it does spoil the lines of an otherwise gorgeous aircraft.
-
Ahh, the CH-53. One of the most blatantly phallic of all appendages on a military vehicle! Not only does it stick out of the front, but it actually EXTENDS even further for actual refueling! It's obscene! The MH-60 is the same way
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Sling-Load-refueling-close-up.jpg)
Again, it's a shame, as I otherwise dig the CH-53's. Also, the length of this hideous thing can present some *ahem* other problems...
https://youtu.be/tO0sRWCf9k4
-
Some photos taken on board CV-12; USS Hornet. They had just restored a F1 Wildcat and it looks gorgeous.
-
Here's the latest addition to our local aviation museum here in Colorado Springs, an SBD-4 Dauntless
(https://cdn.csgazette.biz/cache/r960-6dea033e332d2d5ca5f47c2f121ef961.jpg)
and a picture of the cockpit
(https://cdn.csgazette.biz/cache/r960-dea4a4002a492d07b39dea0fcae7c66f.jpg)
-
That's pretty close to the firestorm to be stopping to take pictures, but what a shot.
(https://i.imgur.com/S1HwpXL.jpg)
-
Both the photographer and the pilot have a set of large brass cojones if you ask me.
-
Awesome photo of that Avro dropping stuff.
Here is the largest thing fighting the fires.
-
de Havilland Mosquito loaded for bear
(https://s1.postimg.org/66baz7pcq7/21272551_1462243167157277_4843515531963919880_n.jpg)
-
Bear? Looks more like loaded for Tiger...
-
maybe it's a post WW2 image?
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Tu-95-Bear-RAF.jpg)
-
I would love to see the RAF intercept the next Bear to test the air space with the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - a Spitfire on each side mounting the interception
-
I would love to see the RAF intercept the next Bear to test the air space with the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - a Spitfire on each side mounting the interception
Well, there's no way in hell they could intercept it. The Bear is faster than either by nearly 200 mph.
-
(http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/typhoon-bob-460x259.jpg)
There is more than one way to skin a cat Bear
-
Well, there's no way in hell they could intercept it. The Bear is faster than either by nearly 200 mph.
That many prop blades spinning, it's a much faster bird than it looks for sure.
(http://i.imgur.com/itwtg0b.jpg)
Meanwhile, here's one carrying the largest air-to-surface missile ever put in service, the AS-3 'Kangaroo' under a Bear. The caption is quite apt here. (Kangaroo, by the way, was an absolute lemon of a weapon in terms of accuracy, but had a warhead big enough to put a hole in whatever it hit. It also is roughly the size of an American F-5 fighter.)
-
Meanwhile, here's one carrying the largest air-to-surface missile ever put in service, the AS-3 'Kangaroo' under a Bear. The caption is quite apt here. (Kangaroo, by the way, was an absolute lemon of a weapon in terms of accuracy, but had a warhead big enough to put a hole in whatever it hit. It also is roughly the size of an American F-5 fighter.)
It's also monstrously loud. Remember the Thunderscreech? The Tu-95 is four of those things in close formation.
Also, the AS-3 was made in the era when "minute of city" was an acceptable measurement of accuracy...
-
The Tu-95 Bear and it's off shoots family's have a very unquie design feature. It's the only prop planet in service that had swept back wings. All other props have straight wings. Which is kinda funny because some of the Selling points of the Q400 high speed turbo prop has a straight wing and a cruising speed about 150 mph less then the old Tu95 turboprop.
-
It also is roughly the size of an American F-5 fighter.
Or, to be more accurate, pretty much the same size as a Su-7, on which it was based IIRC. It certainly shared an engine with the earlier Fitters.
Also, it took 24 hours to prepare an AS-3 for use, which handicapped it as a first-strike weapon.
-
Can someone please explain to me why I like the Gripen so much? I mean, I'm American, and grew up with the F-16, which is similar in many ways, and probably the better plane in a number of key areas. Still, if you stuck me in a flight suit and said I could only pilot one of the two, I'd pick the Gripen. You can even keep your Rafales and Typhoons. They don't 'do it' for me like the Gripen. What the heck is wrong with me? Now, if it was a choice between an F-15 and Gripen...well that is a different matter.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2Sb6ojpva8s/VQmKGSN_gQI/AAAAAAAAFE4/x_fyklfJfAU/s1600/saab-gripen-jas-39-37950.jpg)
-
you recognize beauty when you see it? ^-^
-
Because it's so cute! [neko]
Arguably the Gripen is also the cheaper plane to operate, but that wouldn't matter unless you had to pay for it yourself... ^-^ More importantly I think the Gripen outmaneuvers all versions of the Falcon.
-
... You can even keep your Rafales and Typhoons...
...yes, yes you need help.
:))
-
You can all keep your deltas and canards. Especially your canards. Tailplanes belong on the back. Give me twin engines, twin tails, and tailplanes where they're supposed to be!
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/khadh515.jpg?quality=85)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Raptor_F-22_27th.jpg)
(http://mediartv1.freenode.ro/image/201403/full/sukhoi_su_27_8410_1920x1200_52099400.jpg)
(http://theduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T50.jpg)
-
You forgot one
-
And another ...
(http://images02.military.com/media/equipment/military-aircraft/a-10-thunderbolt-ii/a-10-thunderbolt-ii_011-ts600.jpg)
-
Nah, Gripen's a great little bird. Saab knows their stuff when it comes to designing top of the line warplanes, and after its early teething problems (the kind that would make V-22 pilots worry even) it's become one of the premier fighters out there.
It's also one of very few modern designs to have a single engine, which allows it to be smaller, and to be a sight less expensive than neighbors like Rafale, Flanker, Typhoon, etc.- no small consideration for smaller air forces. (I suspect any thoughts Saab may have had about dual-engines were met with flat 'no' replies from the Swedish Air Force, with their accountants holding rolling pins behind them menacingly)
If anything, thanks to its effectiveness vs. bang for the buck, it's surprising that it hasn't had a wider foreign sales opportunity. Particularly with the F-35's continued problems, one would think countries might start kicking the tires on alternatives at this point, Gripen being an excellent choice.
-
ah, the A-10 Warthog
a plane only a mother and some ground forces could love*
*The British Army are generally not such a huge fan I believe
-
Canadians have had similar issues with the Plastic Bug. I do state I hated it long before that.
-
If anything, thanks to its effectiveness vs. bang for the buck, it's surprising that it hasn't had a wider foreign sales opportunity. Particularly with the F-35's continued problems, one would think countries might start kicking the tires on alternatives at this point, Gripen being an excellent choice.
Richer countries with the money (and connections) to buy F-35s know what's good about that jet - barring 1 vacillating exception, they're unlikely to back off especially now the program is actually delivering results.
Poorer countries are indeed quite attracted to the Gripen's price tag, but are leery of buying a single-engine jet - yes, its cheaper, but a 1-engine jet that develops midflight engine trouble is a written-off jet, and poor countries can't afford many such write-offs. For the same reason its hard to countenance sending the Gripen on sea missions*, and again, poor countries need multi-role combat aircraft capable of doing all kinds of ops everywhere.
*or over vast stretches of desert, or Arctic tundra, in the case of aforementioned vacillating exception
-
If anything, thanks to its effectiveness vs. bang for the buck, it's surprising that it hasn't had a wider foreign sales opportunity. Particularly with the F-35's continued problems, one would think countries might start kicking the tires on alternatives at this point, Gripen being an excellent choice.
It has happened, to some extent. Brazil decided to buy a couple dozen Gripens a year or two ago, and Rafales and Typhoons have been sold in small numbers to Egypt and Quatar, if the internet is to be believed. However, I think the real winner is the F-16 and somewhat the F-18. A number of US allies are already invested in those planes, and are still interested in buying more. The F-15, sadly, doesn't seem very popular these days. Apparently, for not much more than F-15 money, you can get yourself an shiny, 5th gen F-35. Sure it has bugs right now, but you know that the US government is footing the bill to make sure it ends up working, so it is still a fairly 'safe' bet.
But still...dat Gripen! It even knows how to hide its stupid fuel probe when not in use!
(http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/multimedia/dynamic/03196/GRIPEN_3196955g.jpg)
-
early on the F-6 and F-18 could be offered cheaper than the Gripen, since the USAF and USN were retiring older models, which could be cheaply renovated for sale to another country. later there were political wranglings that gave some countries discounts on new build F-16's and F-18's and the support structure for them. (a few of the deals caused minor scandals when the details of how they got them came around)
generally though, it boils down to the fact that the F-16 and F-18 had an edge in getting sales early on, and then built up a good reputation. which the Gripen has been slow to do because so few countries so far have picked it up.
though a lot of the recent success it has had in sales has been when they pitch to people looking to replace old F-5's and similar planes.. in such cases the countries in question are usually looking for something cheaper than the high end stuff like the Falcons, Super Hornets, Rafales and Typhoons. and being mostly up against militarized trainers makes the Gripen a very attractive option when they want an actual combat plane in the deal.
-
*The British Army are generally not such a huge fan I believe
Yeah, sorry about that. I always made sure my guys knew the difference between a Chally 2 and a T-55, but not everyone is so careful.
-
Yeah, sorry about that. I always made sure my guys knew the difference between a Chally 2 and a T-55, but not everyone is so careful.
Or know that AAVs and LAVs aren't threat vehicles.
-
Richer countries with the money (and connections) to buy F-35s know what's good about that jet - barring 1 vacillating exception, they're unlikely to back off especially now the program is actually delivering results.
Poorer countries are indeed quite attracted to the Gripen's price tag, but are leery of buying a single-engine jet - yes, its cheaper, but a 1-engine jet that develops midflight engine trouble is a written-off jet, and poor countries can't afford many such write-offs. For the same reason its hard to countenance sending the Gripen on sea missions*, and again, poor countries need multi-role combat aircraft capable of doing all kinds of ops everywhere.
*or over vast stretches of desert, or Arctic tundra, in the case of aforementioned vacillating exception
big financial kickbacks for procurement officers, government officials, and politicians that the Swedes can't pay??
I mean, it's got the wing-loading of an F-104...
-
More likely jobs in 47 states and 7 countries...
-
You forgot one
For some reason, the Tomcat never did it for me visually. Even less so with the Hornet and Fulcrum. And the Foxbat/Foxhound look as if someone tried to make an Eagle out of boilerplate.
And yes, the Hog looks cool, but not sexy like the four I posted. I'd put the Lightning right up there with those four except they built it with the wrong number of engines. ;)
-
For some reason, the Tomcat never did it for me visually. Even less so with the Hornet and Fulcrum. And the Foxbat/Foxhound look as if someone tried to make an Eagle out of boilerplate.
And yes, the Hog looks cool, but not sexy like the four I posted. I'd put the Lightning right up there with those four except they built it with the wrong number of engines. ;)
I know what you mean, the F-15 is an amazing looking aircraft (said through gritted British teeth) and I get quite frustrated that the British faffed around making the Eurofighter (and even the Tornado) when it would have made more sense to buy the F-15/F-15E
The F-14 is maybe an 8/10 looker or the second most attractive girl in a show - up against the F-15 she looks "average" but put her up on her own or walk past her on the street and you'd definitely look twice
I have grown to like the Hornet but definitely think it looks better in two seat format and I have grown very fond of the F-18F Super-bug/Rhino
-
Here's an early version of a twin-tail, twin engine jet fighter. I think she's very smexy, the F7U Cutlass. This one is loaded for Bear.
(http://www.theworldwars.net/weapons/pictures/air/us/photos/photo_us_f7u_1.jpg)
-
Here's an early version of a twin-tail, twin engine jet fighter. I think she's very smexy, the F7U Cutlass. This one is loaded for Bear.
Looks like a BattleTech Lucifer
-
That it does. I'm sure this plane influenced the artistic vision of the BT Lucifer.
-
That it does. I'm sure this plane influenced the artistic vision of the BT Lucifer.
Its performance also influenced the Lucifer's. Take that how you will.
-
Its performance also influenced the Lucifer's. Take that how you will.
Ain't that the truth. Beautiful plane, poor service history
-
Is it me, or does the JASDF naval camouflage look pretty damn cool? :)
(https://s1.postimg.org/8n0ifixxrz/1467830569716.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1nc8xmk2xb/F-4-_Phantom-_JASDF00043.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/195t6rc7hr/JASDF_UH-60_J_20090822_Hyakuri_Air_Rescue_Wing.jpg)
Looks like a BattleTech Lucifer
Reminds me more of the Slayer, but yeah.
-
Speaking of the Slayer, might be off topic, but GI Joe alsi used a very similar looking plane for one of the future tech gestalt teams, and wondered what the history of the plane was. I wonder if it has unseen roots like the Leopard, Corsair and Samurai now.
-
That it does. I'm sure this plane influenced the artistic vision of the BT Lucifer.
It wasn't called the "Gutless" for nothing.
Then again, pretty much everything with Westinghouse jet engines kinda sucked.
-
Looks like a BattleTech Lucifer
i actually made that comparison i nthe FOTW for the Luci.. because the Cutlass not only has a similar appearance, but also a rather similar history of technical problems.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1916.msg307118#msg307118
(http://www.theworldwars.net/weapons/pictures/air/us/photos/photo_us_f7u_1.jpg)
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/5/58/Lucifer.jpg)
-
I always loved the look of the Cutlass but its pour engines combined with an Elbar toothpic for a nose wheel made it wwwaaayyyy too dangerous to land. this pic (thanks google!) is a good exemple.
-
The really raised cockpit on the Cutlass I always notice. With that big nose landing gear, I can see that forward visual and landing might be a big pain.
-
The really raised cockpit on the Cutlass I always notice. With that big nose landing gear, I can see that forward visual and landing might be a big pain.
They should have shortened the front gear and lengthened the wing gear to give it a flatter profile with regard to the deck.
-
Looking at the angle of attack of the wing and the leading slats, might find that the the nose gear length was intentionally to give the aircraft attitude on landing and take-off.
-
Looking at the angle of attack of the wing and the leading slats, might find that the the nose gear length was intentionally to give the aircraft attitude on landing and take-off.
IT was used to help the plane off the deck its already pointed skyward so that thrust from the engines can help it up. Royal Navy F4s used that also to help the big planes off the deck.
-
Looking at the angle of attack of the wing and the leading slats, might find that the the nose gear length was intentionally to give the aircraft attitude on landing and take-off.
That was exactly it. Remember this was before catapults on carriers. The prototypes had a flatter attitude and what we now consider more normal landing gear, and it just didn't have the short takeoff distance required to get up into the air off the deck of a ww2 vintage aircraft carrier.
The stilt nosegear was a way to improve the takeoff performance, but it caused a lot of issues with visibility during takeoff and landing, and had a bad habit if crumpling if the plane came in for a landing too hard.
-
Speaking of the Slayer, might be off topic, but GI Joe alsi used a very similar looking plane for one of the future tech gestalt teams, and wondered what the history of the plane was. I wonder if it has unseen roots like the Leopard, Corsair and Samurai now.
The GI Joe toy postdates the BattleTech version. Also, despite what Harmony Gold may be trying to convince themselves, things are allowed to be similar without being copyright violations.
-
Thanks! The Gi Joe plane was just so memorable to me for some odd reason.
The GI Joe toy postdates the BattleTech version. Also, despite what Harmony Gold may be trying to convince themselves, things are allowed to be similar without being copyright violations.
-
RAAF have gifted a P-3C Orion to HARS (Historical Aviation Restoration Society) as they retire the P-3C and replace with the new P-8A Poseidon. Here is a nice photo of the latest member of the family with dad, granddad and great-grandad.
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/20161128raaf8185068_0092.jpg)
-
And that, friends, is four generations of scaring the piss out of submarine captains. >:D
-
P-8 Poseidon... we're thinking of buying more MPAs and this Navy officer I was talking to was lusting after it so bad, despite its horrendous price tag.
In other news, Brimstone successfully completed firing trials from the Typhoon, and will be integrated on all RAF Typhoon squadrons shortly.
(https://s1.postimg.org/1f3optq3xb/RS65228_201709405-lpr.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/47rsil6jdr/RS65230_201709580.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/5jza1xvun3/RS65229_201709579.jpg)
-
That is one loaded-up warbird. Wow.
-
The P-8 is ADORABLE!!!
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2014/12/p8-high-altitude.html
how could anyone resist, a 737 with missile racks!!?
-
"Uh, sir, this is a regular 737, that was the luggage compartment purge not the missile launch button."
-
More Poseidon pics:
Showing off the weapons bay
(http://www.boeingimages.com/Docs/BOE/Media/TR3_WATERMARKED/1/c/5/6/BI41685.jpg)
More than just a pretty face, it can make life interesting for both sub and surface captains
(https://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2016/8/16/765859as.jpg)
-
RAAF have gifted a P-3C Orion to HARS (Historical Aviation Restoration Society) as they retire the P-3C and replace with the new P-8A Poseidon. Here is a nice photo of the latest member of the family with dad, granddad and great-grandad.
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/20161128raaf8185068_0092.jpg)
Such a great photo.
-
Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) announced that it has begun domestic development of the ATAK 2 attack helicopter.
TAI began the project to build the six-tonne ATAK 2 domestically without foreign help based on technical knowledge and operational experience gained with the T129 attack helicopter currently produced under licence from Leonardo.
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/400/75400/1711788_-_main.jpg)
The T129:
(https://i1.wp.com/i.imgur.com/Fq4lrZT.jpg)
-
And that, friends, is four generations of scaring the piss out of submarine captains. >:D
You wish.
When threatened with ops working with P-3's out of Whidbey, it was prefaced with "If they can get off the ground." ;D
And we were told to make more noise as well so they could find us.
-
I might get flak for this but who cares?
British pilot, American F-35B, British Paveway IV bombs, USS America - some very close co-operation going on here.
(https://s7.postimg.org/acg9bnyd7/161105-_N-_VR008-0332.jpg)
-
I might get flak for this but who cares?
British pilot, American F-35B, British Paveway IV bombs, USS America - some very close co-operation going on here.
(https://s7.postimg.org/acg9bnyd7/161105-_N-_VR008-0332.jpg)
test footage, or publicity shot?
-
Test, I believe. HMS Queen Elizabeth isn't cleared for flight ops yet, but the RN wants to have trained and qualified carrier pilots the day she IS cleared. So, nearest F-35 capable flat-tops around are American.
Nothing unusual about it. French Rafales have regularly borrowed American decks for similar purposes, after all, and in the Royal Navy's prior carrier days it wasn't all that unusual for their Phantoms and Bucs to do the same.
-
test footage, or publicity shot?
I think 90% of any images of military ops released are, by definition, publicity shots :D
But yeah as said above, the US are helping loads to bootstrap the RN/RAF's reintroduction to carrier air. It is planned that QE2 will operate 1 squadron of USMC F-35Bs as well as her own F-35Bs on her maiden operational voyage, and in future US and UK carrier task forces might jointly launch and land F-35 sorties. Hence the need for small but crucial things like training US crews with UK ordnance and vice versa.
-
Do not try this at home kids (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-29/wingsuit-fliers-board-plane-flying-over-swiss-alps/9205678)
-
Ok, those two win the internet for at least a day...
-
Do not try this at home kids (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-29/wingsuit-fliers-board-plane-flying-over-swiss-alps/9205678)
No way in hell would I ever try that. Too many things could go wrong.
-
Jump out of one plane and get in a different plane. That's weird but neat at the same time
-
Now this is the way to make the morning commute more enjoyable (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-30/why-drive-to-work-when-you-can-fly-fight-for-airborne-commute/9205972)
-
Unsafe but cool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=129&v=F86LW0udkVY)
-
Heck, just being that close when they're dropping stuff out the back is dangerous enough, but they definitely doubled down on that!
-
It's like the guy who shows up at the end of the garage sale and starts looking around in the boxes. "Hey, is there anything left over at all?"
-
Y'know, as a pre-Tomcat pure fleet-defense interceptor there's just not a lot it can really do by comparison to the Double Ugly. It's faster than the F-4, slightly, about 50mph according to Wikipedia. Combat range is equal to the Phantom as well, and while it can climb faster than the Phantom it surrenders a good ten thousand feet of altitude. I think the other reason that it never went beyond a "hmm, what if" stage?
Imagine trying to LAND a 104 on a carrier. That would be a hot screaming nightmare, doubly so if the blown flaps failed (which was not uncommon). Coming in 30 knots faster (140 vs 170 approach speed) means you have a LOT less time to react to things, and on such a small target...yeah, no. Takeoff speed for the F-104 was also much, much higher than the air-grabbing Phantom; the typical liftoff for a Starfighter was around 190 knots - with an M61A1, 725 shells, and four Sidewinders. The Phantom did it with 4.5 times the amount of ordnance...
-
I have to believe that the China Lake test was met not so much with a 'nope' in terms of moving on to carrier trials as a 'oh HELL no', or something similarly strong-worded. There's just no way in hell- as twitchy as the 104 was to begin with, add in a moving, bobbing runway... you couldn't pay me enough to be the test pilot for that bird.
-
It can't be as bad an experience as the time the USAF ejected a bear from a B-58, right?
-
I have to believe that the China Lake test was met not so much with a 'nope' in terms of moving on to carrier trials as a 'oh HELL no', or something similarly strong-worded. There's just no way in hell- as twitchy as the 104 was to begin with, add in a moving, bobbing runway... you couldn't pay me enough to be the test pilot for that bird.
I'm given to understand that the F-104 was, ultimately, a terrible plane that killed far too many of its own pilots. I love a lot of Lockheed's aircraft, but the Starfighter was inexcusable.
...and if you really want to get angry, go read up on how Lockheed went about selling the lawn dart.
-
aside from the usual "using new technology" problems, it worked great when flown as intended.. straight ahead at high altitude at high speeds. most of the handling issues came from trying to go low and slow. or low and fast.
so of course, the German Airforce decided to make it a low altitude attack bomber... #P
most of the Fatal accidents were in the german service, as a result of that bone headed decision, when inexperienced pilots were handed a high performance unforgiving interceptor.. and told to fly fast and low just above the treetops..
-
Even the Americans tried to push it into the strike fighter role; instead it became a mach two tent peg. It was just a stupid idea with what was, for the mid-late 1950s, a damn good interceptor. Should also note it was the first US fighter to carry the M61 vulcan, which was a huge amount of bullet spam and a significant upgrade to the four separate guns featured on US planes of the era...or for that matter the half-dozen .50s present on things like the Sabre.
-
I'm given to understand that the F-104 was, ultimately, a terrible plane that killed far too many of its own pilots. I love a lot of Lockheed's aircraft, but the Starfighter was inexcusable.
...and if you really want to get angry, go read up on how Lockheed went about selling the lawn dart.
As with so many Skunk Works ideas, it was thinking way the hell outside the box and seeing what happened when you did. Sometimes that worked out remarkably well, like the P-38 or A-12. Sometimes it was effective but with severe limitations, like the U-2. The Starfighter is most definitely in the latter category- and only just. Those tiny wings meant low drag, and combining it with a J-79 (same engine as the F-4) meant it was closer-related to the Saturn rocket in performance than to other fighters. Buuuuuuut... yeah, it was an incredibly finicky plane that demanded absolute concentration and skill to operate, and the kind of mistakes that might simply cause a bumpy flight for an F-100 would send a 104 straight into the ground. No wings = small control surfaces and airbrakes, so they didn't really recover from things like spins or stalls. German pilots called them Widowmakers for a reason- safe to say that as air forces like Germany and Italy retired their last (surviving) Starfighters, they weren't exactly missed.
I do recall a story from a Luftwaffe pilot who transitioned from the F-104 to the Tornado, saying that after years of running the 104 he felt like he could take a nap while flying his new bird- which is the reason for the second man in the cockpit, to keep the first one awake in case he gets too comfy.
-
I love the F104. So what if the landing speed is faster than most top fuel drag racers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOwIdAXlgPg
-
The F104 was used by so many nations. It was fast but a death trap. It sure wasn't a dogfighter or anything close to that mission. I remember someone telling me that the wings were so thin and sharp that they had to put something on the wings so people didn't cut or worse when they bumped into it.
-
The F104 was used by so many nations. It was fast but a death trap. It sure wasn't a dogfighter or anything close to that mission. I remember someone telling me that the wings were so thin and sharp that they had to put something on the wings so people didn't cut or worse when they bumped into it.
That was a marketing trick, IIRC. Oddly enough, Spain had the F104 an entire decade. None crashed and everybody loved it. The experience couldn't be better.
-
Ok I need some internet brain help. In my human factors ergonomics lectures, the professor was talking about control design and mentioned either a flap or spoiler lever of a fighter or fighter jet that rigged in a way that the engineers thought was spatially appropriate, maybe rearward for flaps extended. However in one or more go-around accidents, the pilot simply “grabbed a handful” and threw it toward the firewall causing a sudden loss of lift and a stall accident.
What airplane would this have been?
-
Honestly, could be any plane in a landing situation where they're just over stall speed and retract flaps - the point where VS1 becomes VSPLAT doesn't have to be very large. And like TransAsia 235, a minor roll condition at the same time as a loss of lift is catastrophic.
I've not heard of any particular incident with that happening, but it's all too easy a situation in the case of pilot error. See also TA235 again, where the aircraft suffered a flameout and returned on one engine, then mistakenly shut down the functioning engine without enough altitude or velocity to maintain lift.
-
Ok I need some internet brain help. In my human factors ergonomics lectures, the professor was talking about control design and mentioned either a flap or spoiler lever of a fighter or fighter jet that rigged in a way that the engineers thought was spatially appropriate, maybe rearward for flaps extended. However in one or more go-around accidents, the pilot simply “grabbed a handful” and threw it toward the firewall causing a sudden loss of lift and a stall accident.
What airplane would this have been?
I am pretty sure that is how Richard Bong died, he was flying a P80 and needed to go around and he applied power too quickly and the compressor on the engine stalled.
-
That was a marketing trick, IIRC. Oddly enough, Spain had the F104 an entire decade. None crashed and everybody loved it. The experience couldn't be better.
yeah. though the U-2, which used a [very heavily] modified starfighter fuselage actually did have issues with the thinness of its wings.. those giant sailplane like wings had issues during the construction that if you bumped into them with something hard, like a toolbox, or dropped tools, you'd leave sizeable dents. at least according to all the books i've read about its development.
-
You drop anything heavy on a plane you will dent it. Planes are strong but some places are very weak.
-
Yep, that's why aircraft have "NO STEP" written all over the place
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5703b1f632960b9d0dc717be5b7e7b95-c)
-
Yep, that's why aircraft have "NO STEP" written all over the place
Which makes it fun when you have three people standing on the wingroot of a Chipmonk :-)
-
Honestly, could be any plane in a landing situation where they're just over stall speed and retract flaps - the point where VS1 becomes VSPLAT doesn't have to be very large. And like TransAsia 235, a minor roll condition at the same time as a loss of lift is catastrophic.
I've not heard of any particular incident with that happening, but it's all too easy a situation in the case of pilot error. See also TA235 again, where the aircraft suffered a flameout and returned on one engine, then mistakenly shut down the functioning engine without enough altitude or velocity to maintain lift.
Well the key feature was control ergonomics. It was an example of bad thrust lever design where it was actually possible to “grab a handful and throw it to the firewall”. And it may have been spoiler deployment as much as flap retraction. In either case it’s a reason why the handles are much better separated now.
-
Which makes it fun when you have three people standing on the wingroot of a Chipmonk :-)
Yep, makes it much harder to do these type of squadron photos:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Aircrew_and_groundcrew_of_No._432_%28Leaside%29_Squadron%2C_RCAF.jpeg)
-
Bell Helicopter’s V-280 Valor takes off on its first flight, December 18, 2017 at Amarillo Texas.
(https://i0.wp.com/defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/v280_first_1021.jpg?resize=696%2C422)
-
Looks pretty small... what market are they chasing? The paint job and name seem to suggest military, but the size seems to lean toward civilian...
-
Bell Helicopter’s V-280 Valor takes off on its first flight, December 18, 2017 at Amarillo Texas.
(https://i0.wp.com/defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/v280_first_1021.jpg?resize=696%2C422)
Hmm. Looks like it shouldn't blast the deck with jet exhaust like the Osprey does. I'm trying to remember what the other competitor is in the Army competition they made the Valor for. I want to say it was something with a pusher-prop but I honestly can't think of it at the moment.
-
A joint Sikorsky-Boeing product called the SB-1 Defiant and is based on Sikorsky's X2 prototype.
-
Looks pretty small... what market are they chasing? The paint job and name seem to suggest military, but the size seems to lean toward civilian...
The entire Future Vertical Lift program: H-1s and H-60s.
-
Wow... H-1s and H-60s are pretty good at what they do, so it'll be interesting to see what can out do them.
-
well basically the army wants a replacement for the UH-60, and decided they wanted tilt rotors (for the increased range and speed mainly) they picked the V-280 Valor out of the various proposals they got. the V-280 Valor is basically a UH-60 with tilt rotor gear.
there is also a version proposed that would basically be a gunship.
-
Looks pretty small... what market are they chasing? The paint job and name seem to suggest military, but the size seems to lean toward civilian...
Both pretty much. Imagine something like this as an air-ambulance. UH-1D has a pretty damn low top speed, you won't see a buck-fifty mph unless gravity has a lot to do with your flight characteristics. Meanwhile the 280 is designed for over twice that, which means getting patients in and out a lot faster while still being VTOL capable. I can imagine how popular a firefighting version would be, possibly drawing water from nearby swimming pools in hover, then hitting the target fire area in either low speed hovers or high speed passes. And with 14 troops in a transport setup, it'd make a decent little puddle-jumper between airports - or a corporate plane for those whom the Gulfstream is plebian. "Yeah but mine can land on a building."
-
Bell Helicopter’s V-280 Valor takes off on its first flight, December 18, 2017 at Amarillo Texas.
(https://i0.wp.com/defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/v280_first_1021.jpg?resize=696%2C422)
The V-tail looks cool as ****
-
"Boeing to unveil mystery plane that will 'change the future of air power"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/boeing-unveils-new-plane-mystery-aircraft/
-
well basically the army wants a replacement for the UH-60, and decided they wanted tilt rotors (for the increased range and speed mainly) they picked the V-280 Valor out of the various proposals they got. the V-280 Valor is basically a UH-60 with tilt rotor gear.
there is also a version proposed that would basically be a gunship.
Close, there's also the Boeing competitor Shrapnel mentioned. The competition's still ongoing.
-
Damn, the last 747 in US airline service retires today. Just a few years ago they were nigh-ubiquitous.
-
"Boeing to unveil mystery plane that will 'change the future of air power"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/boeing-unveils-new-plane-mystery-aircraft/
Looks like it's their submission for the unmanned tanker for the USN:
https://news.usni.org/2017/12/19/boeing-unveils-mq-25a-stingray-entry
-
Bell Helicopter’s V-280 Valor takes off on its first flight, December 18, 2017 at Amarillo Texas.
(https://i0.wp.com/defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/v280_first_1021.jpg?resize=696%2C422)
They have been working on that for a while now. Glad they got a prototype flying.
-
They have been working on that for a while now. Glad they got a prototype flying.
The black helicopter-y-ness of it tossed the Airwolf theme into my brain.
-
Well, I know what my chummers are riding in for their next extraction job for Mister Johnson.
Wiz.
-
The engineer in me wonders how much more complicated that layout makes the gearboxes and whether the propellers have an interconnected drive shaft like in the V-22 Osprey so that one engine can drive both propellers in case of an engine failure.
-
A joint Sikorsky-Boeing product called the SB-1 Defiant and is based on Sikorsky's X2 prototype.
...and it's hideous.
(https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/10/sb-1render2.jpg)
-
Ugly, sure, but I don't think I'd go that far... Honestly, it looks like it has a smaller footprint than the Bell tilt rotor, and that counts for a lot.
-
Its like a GI JOE vehicle: "Right, so we take a Blackhawk, double the rotors double the fun, put another screw on the back cause why not..." All they're missing is the oodles of rockets and detachable mini-vehicle. (Figures sold separately.)
-
I knew I'd seen that configuration before.
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/lockheed/lok_cheyenne_1.jpg)
-
The black helicopter-y-ness of it tossed the Airwolf theme into my brain.
(http://comicsculture.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/airwolf.gif)
-
(http://comicsculture.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/airwolf.gif)
BOW DOWN TO THE MAGICAL MIGHT OF THE INVINCIBLE RETREATING BLADE.
-
Also sorry about that. The mod tools are right next to the quote button and, well, iPad thumb.
-
Every time I see a Bell 222 flyover for Lifeflight where I live. I say "look it's Airwolf" some people get it some don't.
-
(http://comicsculture.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/airwolf.gif)
*triggered* dum de dum, DAH DAH DE DAH, DAH DAH DE DAH, dum de dum dum ;D
-
Every time I see a Bell 222 flyover for Lifeflight where I live. I say "look it's Airwolf" some people get it some don't.
The 222 is a beautiful bird, ain't she?
-
Every time I see a Bell 222 flyover for Lifeflight where I live. I say "look it's Airwolf" some people get it some don't.
And hearing Ernest Borgnine say "but string..."
-
Going low in Straya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXkAxviBAtg)
-
Going low in Straya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXkAxviBAtg)
That's cool right up until something goes wrong and the plane crashes into a building
Far better to do that sort of flying over wilderness, canyons and mountains
But of course, Australia is a really cramped and tiny island without large tracts of open space - perhaps their pilots should come to North Wales and fly there for some experience?
-
Going low in Straya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXkAxviBAtg)
I can see it now as the young pilot has his wings pulled off his uni by his Wing Commander for reckless flying and violation of standing orders regarding flight operations in urban areas during peacetime. Nice video, but likely a career ender
-
Unlikely to be a CLM.
It appears to be an acrobatic display for the Gold Coast 600 Supercars race (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_600 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_600))
Which means that it is fully planned and authorised "mission" with the blessing of the boss and civilian authorities.
-
Yup, they'll put on shows like that from time to time. So does the US, for Fleet Week in San Francisco, you get neat things like this:
(https://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/10/83/HUFrs4.jpg)
-
See you can have fun with flight safety (and you do not even have to be a German Leopard tank crew member):
https://youtu.be/sPfya60FYo4 (https://youtu.be/sPfya60FYo4)
-
From the unveiling of the first upgraded Tu-160
(https://russianplanes.net/images/to225000/224762.jpg)
-
That Tu-160 is a weird looking aircraft.
-
That Tu-160 is a weird looking aircraft.
no weirder than the b-1
-
It reminds me of a Concorde.
-
Face it, we know it's going to happen.
A friend of mine saw this and pointed out the Tu-95 would still be using props loud enough to be heard in outer space.
"In space no one can hear you scream...because of that damn bomber!"
-
That Tu-160 is a weird looking aircraft.
it's not weird, it's beautiful...like a B-1's older, sexier sister.
-
Face it, we know it's going to happen.
A friend of mine saw this and pointed out the Tu-95 would still be using props loud enough to be heard in outer space.
"In space no one can hear you scream...because of that damn bomber!"
I kinda really want to kitbash that...
-
Face it, we know it's going to happen.
A friend of mine saw this and pointed out the Tu-95 would still be using props loud enough to be heard in outer space.
"In space no one can hear you scream...because of that damn bomber!"
wrong type of nacelles though..
-
On a sad note, an RAAF EA-18 Growler just crashed in Las Vegas, while taking part in Red Flag exercises. Thoughts & prayers with the aviators, their families, and loved ones.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3qIj4T8-QDI/UT5HuE6-_ZI/AAAAAAAAlDc/_7j5cHNLYZ0/s1600/130311_navy_crash_g_2a.jpg)
O Spirit, whom the Father sent
To spread abroad the firmament;
O Wind of heaven, by thy might
Save all who dare the eagle's flight,
And keep them by thy watchful care
From every peril in the air.
Here's one in happier times, from context in Nevada:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Australian_EA-18G_at_Joint_Base_Pearl_Harbor-Hickam_in_2017.jpg/1920px-Australian_EA-18G_at_Joint_Base_Pearl_Harbor-Hickam_in_2017.jpg)
Australia took delivery of 12 Growlers in only July last year. The Growler is 90% compatible with the two-seater FA-18F, I'm told, with additional electronics and some aerodynamic tweaks.
-
Pilot and wizzo got out safely.
-
I'm delighted to hear that! Looks like they tried an approach, but punched out in time. That's a fairly shallow impact.
-
From publicly available sources, Growler was on take-off, had an engine problem, aborted take-off, overshot end of runway, crew was able to stop aircraft, exit aircraft before it caught fire.
Does not seem like it is going be to fixable . . .
Yes the EA-18F is just a F/A-18F with extra bits on it. In fact the 12 F/A-18Fs that we also purchased before the 12 EA-18Fs have been wired with the cabling so that they can be converted to Growlers when the F-35As are commissioned into service.
-
Now THAT's thinking ahead... I wish my government would do more of that.
-
For once the bean-counters and political advisors actually listened to the guys in uniform.
Now if only the guys in uniform with wings on chests listened to the guys in uniforms with pocket protectors and scientific calculators, we would have also bought two squadrons of F/A-18Es after committing to buying one squadron of early build F-35As that would have given us options to negotiate the price down by not having to buy early build F-35As . . .
-
I'm delighted to hear that! Looks like they tried an approach, but punched out in time. That's a fairly shallow impact.
Makes me think of investigation methods I learned in human factors coursework.
- If you can maintain longitudinal integrity of the airplane, you’re more likely to make it.
- This does not apply to stall spin accidents.
- In fact that’s a telling indicator: no approach scarring at the crash site. Good sign of a spin with little forward movement.
- Dramatic examples show pictures of a perfectly normal looking airplane from above. Just a whole lot flatter from the side.
- GA seats have 11G crumple structures. It still won’t dissipate all that vertical energy.
- Spinal compression sucks
- Learn to manage lift properly at low altitude and don’t cross your controls.
-
I am reminded of the fatal crash a couple years ago at Houston Hobby, when a pilot deployed her flaps at too low an airspeed and went into a spin. The impact area was literally limited to a single car in a parking lot.
-
Here's what's left of that RAAF Growler at Nellis:
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/01/1-3-768x437.jpg)
-
It looks surprisingly intact.
-
I assume it is an engine fire. The location of the engine would see a lot of damage to the airframe, both in the centre barrel and the wing root. I would be seriously concerned that the structural integrity has been compromised by the heat. It would probably be repairable but it would involve stripping the airframe down to components, then doing non-destructive testing and replacing any failed structural sections. As the Growler is still in production, it is probably more economical to purchase a new airframe, "christmas tree" this electronic components for spares and the airframe can be used for maintenance/battle damage repair training.
-
no weirder than the b-1
I always thought this was an odd plane, the B-36 Peacemaker. Six turbo-prop engines and four jet engines.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker.jpg)
-
Six turning, four burning. ;)
-
Six turning, four burning. ;)
"two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for."
-
"two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for."
its a neat looking plane cause of the Pusher props.
-
Five bucks says that Growler driver gets a new callsign. Torch, Blaze, any other likely ones?
-
Smokey? Poptart?
-
Yes, he/she will probably "cop a bit of stick" from the rest of the aircrew (my guess on new callsign being "Norman" or "Lauda") but that will be because they are jealous that he/she will now be in the running to be a future CAF (Chief of Air Force).
With the history that the RAAF had with operating the Mirage, at one stage the running in-house joke was that it was a prerequisite for one-star promotion that you must have ejected from an aircraft. When I was serving at Headquarters Air Command as a wet behind the ears junior staff officer, my one-star ("Poodle") and the other one-star ("Shep") celebrated their 20th anniversary of having ejected out of a Mirage together (Poodle was the instructor with Shep as his student pilot at the time). Shep later went on to become Chief of Air Force.
-
A little fun with the Top Gun opening credits: https://youtu.be/cCmDa3Dp7l8 (https://youtu.be/cCmDa3Dp7l8)
-
A little fun with the Top Gun opening credits: https://youtu.be/cCmDa3Dp7l8 (https://youtu.be/cCmDa3Dp7l8)
Hard to beat the classics... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmX08CsXqws&t=) ;)
-
It makes it hard to go back and hear the "Ma-ku-ross" theme.
-
It makes it hard to go back and hear the "Ma-ku-ross" theme.
You ain't kidding...
Ruger
-
That's the first thing that I've ever seen that made me want to watch anime ;D
-
At least the show wasn't named after the first choice. Macbeth.
-
I ended up falling in love with this flying lead weight.
(https://s14.postimg.org/5zjdocy35/image.jpg)
-
Time for some what if/design sketches/studies. Obviously since few of these even got past the doodling phase, obedience to the laws of physics is sometimes optional...
Hawker Siddeley HS.1202-9: Looking at it, it clearly seems to be a 4th-gen aircraft that was superseded by the Typhoon
(https://i.imgur.com/sMnjyi9.png)
BAE P.110. The resemblance to the EAP demonstrator and eventual Typhoon is quite clear
(http://hhttps://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?s=7b647fc9c7720ab88fcda9b03a28400d&attachmentid=100493&d=1129404281)
(https://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?s=7b647fc9c7720ab88fcda9b03a28400d&attachmentid=100491&d=1129404281)
This JASDF FS-X concept before they decided to go with a gold-plated F-16 has almost the exact same configuration with the twin vertical tail canard delta
(http://www.ryuse.com/SQT/fighters/fsx87kaisetu.jpg)
BAE P.106B Reminds me more than a little of the Gripen except for the cranked delta wing and wings terminating further forward relative to the tail
(https://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?s=7b647fc9c7720ab88fcda9b03a28400d&attachmentid=100487&d=1129403741)
Vought's mockup of their submission for what became the F-14 before they were eliminated from the competition
(https://milaviate.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/vought-v-507.jpg)
Concept art of another Vought design (X-100)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1d/d8/b3/1dd8b3f08a7c834e9a950d28833fff0e.jpg)
BAE Wharton P.103 tilt engine design is just a reminder that modern V/STOL aircraft are already quite tame from some of the ideas they've had before.
(https://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?s=7b647fc9c7720ab88fcda9b03a28400d&attachmentid=100470&d=1129402537)
(https://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1978p103b1.jpg?w=600)
BAE P.1214-3 concept really brings home the bizarre.
(https://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/p121439dr.jpg?w=700)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/WtMiller/2223.jpg)
Some neat artwork in this NASA document on mockups that were run through their wind tunnels:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890000646.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890000646.pdf)
Lockheed also had the CL288 design study of which I can't find a good picture of. It's an F-104 with two wing-mounted J-79s because what the F-104 really needed was more engine. I suppose the configuration resembles the Bristol 188 research aircraft with the T-tail and twin wing-mounted engines
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161018165439/1434588304307.jpg)
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161018165147/1434588232275.jpg)
-
Lockheed also had the CL288 design study of which I can't find a good picture of. It's an F-104 with two wing-mounted J-79s because what the F-104 really needed was more engine. I suppose the configuration resembles the Bristol 188 research aircraft with the T-tail and twin wing-mounted engines
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161018165439/1434588304307.jpg)
"Hey Kelly, I think we've killed enough West German pilots." "Ben, hold my beer."
-
This JASDF FS-X concept before they decided to go with a gold-plated F-16 has almost the exact same configuration with the twin vertical tail canard delta
(http://www.ryuse.com/SQT/fighters/fsx87kaisetu.jpg)
When Anime designers try to build actual planes
-
"Hey Kelly, I think we've killed enough West German pilots." "Ben, hold my beer."
Oh, that's Rich.
The West Germans had a 30% loss rate for F-104s, which... frighteningly isn't unusual. They operated the most aircraft though, so that converts into something like 270 airframes. Canada had the worse attrition rate: 110 airframes for a 46% loss rate.
-
I always wondered what the proper level-flight envelope was like for the XFV-12. All the stuff I've read only focuses on the total failure of the VTOL system, but says nothing about how it might have stood up as a conventional takeoff aircraft and how it handled at altitude.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/XFV-12A_mockpu_NAColumbus_NAN9-73.jpg)
Anyone ever hear anything?
When Anime designers try to build actual planes
Look for Patlabor 2 for 'doing it right' in that regard.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1210/724872621_7355c4d238_o.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tTHeQu3S98E/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Great images
The HS 1202-9 looks an awful lot like an F-16
I see just about all of them as aerospace fighters in BattleTech though :)) (the wackier the better)
-
That Japan update look like this design McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD. It had vectored thrust. I guess its where the Canards of the Su-33 and the modifications came from something. The Russians got it, the US didn't.
-
Concept art of another Vought design (X-100)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1d/d8/b3/1dd8b3f08a7c834e9a950d28833fff0e.jpg)
Hey! It's the original version of the VF-4 Lightning III from the Macross universe!
Edit: Or at least its prototype, the VF-X-4...
Ruger
-
Edit: talking about the HS.1202-9. I don't know how I managed to quote the wrong post.
And that is why you don't leave a F-16 and F-18 unattended in the hanger overnight... :D
In all seriousness, I thought it was a concept for a navalized F-16 until I read the text.
-
Oh, that's Rich.
I cannot think of another industry where I know two generations of chief engineers right off the top of my head. :D
The West Germans had a 30% loss rate for F-104s, which... frighteningly isn't unusual. They operated the most aircraft though, so that converts into something like 270 airframes. Canada had the worse attrition rate: 110 airframes for a 46% loss rate.
Let's be honest: those would be horrifying numbers for missiles, let alone manned aircraft. While I am a big fan of Johnson and Rich's Skunk Works projects, mainline Lockheed was...not the best.
-
Lockheed also had the CL288 design study of which I can't find a good picture of. It's an F-104 with two wing-mounted J-79s because what the F-104 really needed was more engine. I suppose the configuration resembles the Bristol 188 research aircraft with the T-tail and twin wing-mounted engines
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161018165439/1434588304307.jpg)
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161018165147/1434588232275.jpg)
Hmm...
(http://www.roadsters.com/ssc_500x446.jpg)
Familiar.
-
I always wondered what the proper level-flight envelope was like for the XFV-12. All the stuff I've read only focuses on the total failure of the VTOL system, but says nothing about how it might have stood up as a conventional takeoff aircraft and how it handled at altitude.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/XFV-12A_mockpu_NAColumbus_NAN9-73.jpg)
Anyone ever hear anything?
Wind tunnel tests were promising, which was suprising considering its franken-fighter nature. Looks good, though.
While the liftoff problems were terminal, another issue would have been its low payload. Given the wing undersurfaces were covered in fan ducts & gim-crackery, it could only have managed a minimal weapons load on the fuselage itself - planned to be 4 Sparrows or Sidewinders, plus a 20mm cannon (Vulcan?).
W
-
I was so excited when I was looking for other pictures of the XFV-12, and found one showing it in flight!
...except it turned out it was a CGI mockup of a guy's planned remote-control build. Boo.
-
Wind tunnel tests were promising, which was suprising considering its franken-fighter nature. Looks good, though.
While the liftoff problems were terminal, another issue would have been its low payload. Given the wing undersurfaces were covered in fan ducts & gim-crackery, it could only have managed a minimal weapons load on the fuselage itself - planned to be 4 Sparrows or Sidewinders, plus a 20mm cannon (Vulcan?).
Yeah, the lack of ordnance would be a thing, though I wonder how much you could get if you ripped all the ducting out and pulled the VTOL system completely. Watching a couple video clips of Phantoms lobbing Sparrows though, I'd say it's probably not safe - those low canards would really interfere with any missile fire coming from the wings. Maybe overwing rails like the Jaguar would work, but that'd be a huge PITA to reload.
-
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1400/1*M-WKvDdMQ0CJlE7INCXsFw.jpeg)
First flight of the Vahana (https://vahana.aero/) single passenger electric VTOL self-piloted aircraft.
-
I always thought this was an odd plane, the B-36 Peacemaker. Six turbo-prop engines and four jet engines.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker.jpg)
My favourite bomber!
-
Pictures really don't do justice to how massive those bombers were.
-
Pictures really don't do justice to how massive those bombers were.
It is very hard to take a good picture of the B36 in the Air Force Museum. It is just too big. Actually, it is quite easy to take a bad picture of it. It is the background of all the other pictures. The wheels are over 12 feet tall.
-
Well, here's a picture of one of the B-36 prototypes next to a B-29.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/B-36aarrivalcarswell1948.jpg)
-
It's official. The B-52 will out-serve the B-1 and B-2: http://www.combataircraft.net/2018/02/12/usaf-bomber-vector-revealed-b-1-and-b-2-to-be-scrapped/ (http://www.combataircraft.net/2018/02/12/usaf-bomber-vector-revealed-b-1-and-b-2-to-be-scrapped/)
-
Granddad flew the Peacemaker after the last of the B-24s was retired (in between he was a training officer), and absolutely hated it. He never had an unkind thing to say about the Liberator, and absolutely adored the Stratojet he finished on, but the B-36... he hated that thing in the kind of way that made a little kid who loved airplanes laugh hysterically. He had some good stories- coming home with three props desperately turning on the right side because the three on the left all died in-flight (of different problems, no less!), hangar doors freezing shut on the planes so they couldn't be readied for a sortie... that was a fun one. If you look at the below, you'll see there's a sort of cut-out in the door. The planes were too big to use the hangars previously intended for B-29s sometimes, so you'd have most of it indoors and the tail would stay outside. Well, freezing rain actually froze the doors to the planes, and because this was in Alaska in wintertime pouring hot water on it just refroze before you could get the door open- and the de-icer couldn't make it to the hangar because of the weather. So despite getting a 'wheels up in 20' notice, the squadron had to report back 'nope'.
(Upon seeing a photo a couple of years before he died of a B-36 in a museum, his response was to glance at the photo, roll his eyes, and say "Damn, I hoped they all suffered when they got scrapped. If ever an aircraft deserves to have a molotov lobbed at it...")
(http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/95thBW/B-36_Biggs_12.jpg)
-
Just ask Jack Northrop what his thoughts were on the B 36...and the Navy. Just discussing the reason for the B 36 adoption would run foul of a few forum rules (mostly politics, hate speech, and swearing). I think it served its purpose as a deterrent all right. "If the Americans have enough money to throw at that monstrous waste as a diversion, what are they really hiding?!?!"
"If all engines function normally at full power during the pre-takeoff warm-up, the lead flight engineer will sometimes say to the Aircraft Commander (AC), 'six turning and four burning.'" Erratic reliability led to the wisecrack, 'two turning, two burning, two joking, and two smoking, with two engines not accounted for.'"
-
I have to ask: what was the point of mixing props and jets on that thing in the first place?
-
I have to ask: what was the point of mixing props and jets on that thing in the first place?
It was the six props to begin with. The jets were added later due to the plane being a bit underpowered. They helped, to an extent, but created a whole new set of problems (lots of weight added to a place on the wing that didn't really like having weight added). Other late-life mods included a bulged cockpit, experiments with belly-mounted 'midget' fighters... Granddad mentioned that at one point the .50 cal guns were removed from one plane in exchange for single-mount 20mm cannons, but the guns were never installed on the plane before it was retired.
Note that the engine additions made it one of the very few aircraft to make it into line service with jet AND prop engines (not to be confused with a turboprop like the P-3 Orion or Tu-95 Bear). Other experiments with that idea either failed or were testbeds to begin with.
-
From my understanding the jets were supposed to only be used when an extra dash of power was needed, either in takeoff or a dash over the target. Early on the piston engines were still more efficient for cruise than the J 47 jet engines.
-
Jet engines are more powerful but are also burn more fuel. Props are more fuel efficient, not quite as powerful but are more reliable. So we went through a period of aviation design theory in the 50s when they tried to get the best of both worlds with a mix of jet engines to give extra power on take-off and climb but props for fuel efficient cruising and therefore better range before in-flight refuelling became standard practice.
Some other mixed engine military aircraft:
Fairchild C-123 Provider (aka Jailbird from the movie Conair, also made appearances in the movies Dumbo Drop and Air America)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Provider%40DoverAFB_WilliamGrimes.JPG)
Lockheed P-2 Neptune
(http://www.goodall.com.au/photographs/warbird-heavies-80/Neptune-A89-273-MNG-4.83-flypast-KKK.jpg)
-
Jet engines are more powerful but are also burn more fuel. Props are more fuel efficient, not quite as powerful but are more reliable. So we went through a period of aviation design theory in the 50s when they tried to get the best of both worlds with a mix of jet engines to give extra power on take-off and climb but props for fuel efficient cruising and therefore better range before in-flight refuelling became standard practice.
Some other mixed engine military aircraft:
Fairchild C-123 Provider (aka Jailbird from the movie Conair, also made appearances in the movies Dumbo Drop and Air America)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Provider%40DoverAFB_WilliamGrimes.JPG)
Lockheed P-2 Neptune
(http://www.goodall.com.au/photographs/warbird-heavies-80/Neptune-A89-273-MNG-4.83-flypast-KKK.jpg)
I'm 5 minutes down the road from an airworthy C123K the Thunderpig.
-
Did the combi power plant planes have two sets of fuel tanks for avgas and jet fuel?
-
To save weight and complexity of two separate fuel systems, the Westinghouse J34 jet engines on P2Vs burned the 115–145 Avgas fuel of the piston engines, instead of jet fuel. The jet pods were fitted with intake doors that remained closed when the J-34s were not running. This prevented windmilling, allowing for economical piston-engine-only long-endurance search and patrol operations. In normal US Navy operations, the jet engines were run at full power (97%) to assure takeoff, then shut down upon reaching a safe altitude. The jets were also started and kept running at flight idle during low-altitude (500-foot (150 m) during the day and 1,000-foot (300 m) at night) anti-submarine and/or anti-shipping operations as a safety measure should one of the radials develop problems.
-
This was only of the few planes that had different sized engines to powered the plane.
I don't know if it counts because it never made it past the test phase.
Also got to give it to the couple of designs that went from propeller to jet engine. The Saab 21 and the Dornier D328 are the only few successful designs to do that.
-
I have to ask: what was the point of mixing props and jets on that thing in the first place?
Adding the jets was an relatively easy way to add more power. The jet nacelles and pylons were lightly modified B-47 inner nacelles and pylons IIRC.
-
(https://www.airteamimages.com/pics/246/246192_800.jpg)
C-119 had them as well, and the later -K gunship conversions mounted two for the extra thrust to get a brace of miniguns and M61 Vulcans airborne.
-
Early jets took a long time to get to full thrust and took forever to take off and with the jets being under powered. Like the B36 only used its jets to basically get in the air, it was all prop after that.
-
Anyone got a spare GBP60,000? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-19/original-nose-of-concorde-up-for-auction/9461936 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-19/original-nose-of-concorde-up-for-auction/9461936)
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161107130216/1434577822921.jpg)
-
I saw one of those at Udvar-Hazy; they're shockingly tiny things. I can't imagine how cramped they must be inside even with with 25x2x2 seating; I still wish I'd not put off the one chance I ever had at a flight over and back in '98. Planned to, then things came up, then 'Next year' and then 'oh dear god' and that was that.
-
I saw one of those at Udvar-Hazy; they're shockingly tiny things. I can't imagine how cramped they must be inside even with with 25x2x2 seating; I still wish I'd not put off the one chance I ever had at a flight over and back in '98. Planned to, then things came up, then 'Next year' and then 'oh dear god' and that was that.
The Concorde on the inside was no larger then just your normal Regional Jet, the seats were nicer and spaced out more, but it wasn't for the luxury it was for the status and style. The fact that you flew on the Concorde!
-
The Concorde on the inside was no larger then just your normal Regional Jet, the seats were nicer and spaced out more, but it wasn't for the luxury it was for the status and style. The fact that you flew on the Concorde!
And speed. That it was a much shorter flight across the Atlantic made it one heck of a status symbol.
-
My grandparents got to fly on a Concorde one time. They said it was very nice inside, not cramped at all. And it was much quieter than a normal jet.
-
I've walked around a Concorde on the ground as a child and as an adult, although both times were ground tours. It didn't feel cramped compared to Airbus/Boeing, the seat spacing was decent, just there were fewer seats
-
I never flew on Concorde, but I was treated to a grand tour of the one in Everett, WA several years ago. (Normally glass partitions keep people out of the cockpit and cabin, but our tour group was allowed in)
NOPE.
It's a good thing that flight is so short. I'm 6'5" and at that point about 240 lbs., and I found it was not a fun experience. Leg room wasn't much different than a standard airliner (so, awful), but the seat was very narrow, the cabin height forced me into a pose more suited to ringing bells at Notre Dame... and look, my major is aviation, I get it- smaller cabin means smaller fuselage, means less drag, means less power needed to get up to speed. Simple. But very uncomfortable for a man of my size.
For comparison's sake, next to that aircraft is the 747 prototype, City of Everett. After cramming myself in Concorde for the past 30 minutes, I could have stretched out and dozed on that birds' seats. Every time I get on an airliner, I think of City of Everett... I'm slimmer now than I used to be, but no shorter, and I dream of the days that a plane like that was the way to travel. She looks pretty awful these days, from what I hear, but only a little worn back when I toured her.
-
It is a damn shame that the 747 is going away. I never actually got to fly on one.
-
It is a damn shame that the 747 is going away. I never actually got to fly on one.
Oh it's not going away quite yet- just from American-flagged carriers. More than a few foreign carriers will keep flying them for years to come, and of course it's still king of the freight haulers. (Though I recommend against shipping yourself that way.)
The comfiest I've ever been in an airline seat was a Lufthansa 747, which I thought I'd melt into the upholstry of. (Well, absolute comfiest was a Southwest flight to Denver in which I ended up with a whole row to myself- stretching out with my head against the wall watching a movie is as relaxed as I've ever been.)
-
It is a damn shame that the 747 is going away. I never actually got to fly on one.
Don't worry, I few on a few of them. My Thailand trip in 2014 was on a old UA 747 and I sat broken down on ramp for the first 3 hours. Last trip to Thailand we flew on a 747 from Chang Mai to Phuket. It was kinda weird being on plan that sized for such a relatively short hop. It was like a shortened version as well. The 747 short...
-
It is a damn shame that the 747 is going away. I never actually got to fly on one.
I'm pretty sure I flew on a 747 when I was a kid and my family went to New Zealand to visit my uncle.
Boy was that a long flight.
-
The B747 has been a mainstay of flights out of Australia. I have had the privilege of flying on them a few times and they have always been great. Some fond memories of the B747 for me:
- landing at Kai Tak airport, Hong Kong on RWY13 using the checkerboard approach and looking out the window at a little old lady hanging up her washing from her apartment balcony not far beyond and slight above the wingtip.
(https://cdn3.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980x551/public/images/methode/2016/08/16/55972830-6365-11e6-aefa-e8609c477948_1280x720.jpg?itok=NRCqv-OL) (https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_1024,c_fill,g_auto,h_576,ar_16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F130611022119-hong-kong-kai-tak-cathay2.jpg)
- another time landing at Kai Tak with a strong crosswind and we landed so hard that I was not sure of it was just a hard landing or if we had been shot down.
- flying in centre seats (5 seats across in economy) when the aircraft was reasonably empty gave me a 5 seat width long bed to sleep in (I am only 177cm but the extra legroom was luxury).
- flying business class for work and getting a seat in the upper deck
(https://www.airteamimages.com/pics/39/39711_800.jpg)
The B747-SP (or Special Performance) which is a short-bodied B747 designed to be able to fly longer distance routes was always a pretty sight.
(https://cdn-enterprise.discourse.org/infinite_flight/uploads/default/original/3X/c/9/c94d93935b6cf48d5b4da3e8eafe2eab3d34c945.jpg)
-
Those SPs always rattle me when I see them. The 747's profile is just so iconic, seeing it truncated like that just feels WRONG. It's like a Mad Cat without the shoulder missile boxes- it's still a Mad Cat, but it just feels weird.
-
The 747SP still flies but with a big door and a telescope.
The larger wings can help that 747 get higher then most.
-
A few random photos
C-5M in Bangor Maine taken from the air stairs on the Omega KDC-10-40
(https://i.imgur.com/C9XYFp3.jpg)
Mid TRANSLANT
(https://i.imgur.com/Jwv9lh2.jpg)
Behind the scenes at Farnborough
(https://i.imgur.com/uFBHiQL.jpg)
Even more behind the scenes
(https://i.imgur.com/vz95955.jpg)
-
So disappointing to see that paint scheme on a Hornet. :-[
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ZllRz0y.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/6d/11/e1/6d11e16a319e68d1c9604d0d340bb112--fighter-aircraft-fighter-jets.jpg)
^-^
-
Galileo,
Galileo,
Galileo,
-
Gleefully stolen.
-
A little more behind the scenes from Farnborough 2016. Corsair start up and taxi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBU9sD_bXgU
-
Just need to have 2 Thunderbolt's to make that picture right
-
(http://www.487thbg.org/Photos/BeelzebubsBabe.jpg)
has a
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/%27Red_Devil%27_plane_at_Minlaton.jpg)
put aside for me
-
Ladies and gentlemen
The Vulcan howl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJlsDiC9TBI
This sound wasn't for all vulcans, but it was due to the arrangement of their air intakes.
-
Just absolutely gorgeous.
-
Ladies and gentlemen
The Vulcan howl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJlsDiC9TBI
This sound wasn't for all vulcans, but it was due to the arrangement of their air intakes.
Kind of reminds me of the F-104...but much, MUCH louder! I wish I had been able to see a Vulcan fly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdDoKosn-88 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdDoKosn-88)
It starts howling at about 2:30 in that video.
-
...I want that as my computer startup sound.
-
I saw the Vulcan a couple of times. The best was at Carlisle airport during it's last summer of flying. It came in so quietly that we almost missed it, glided over the airfield in what felt like silence, then poured on the power and roared away for another circuit. It was a beautiful plane.
-
I saw the Vulcan a couple of times. The best was at Carlisle airport during it's last summer of flying. It came in so quietly that we almost missed it, glided over the airfield in what felt like silence, then poured on the power and roared away for another circuit. It was a beautiful plane.
I had the same happen years ago in Gaithersburg, MD, when I first moved to this area. I got off the bus late at night after a late evening at work, and from the bus stop I walked across a grass field to my door. It was a clear night, full moon, and I kept feeling like there was something in the sky to the south of me (my left) as I was walking- out of the corner of my eye I could see it, but if I looked right at it, nothing there but stars.
It passed over almost silently- even after it passed it was surprisingly quiet for being as low as it was (under 3000 feet-ish, at a guess). Quiet, hard to see in its all-black paint, and gone in a heartbeat past the treetops to the north. If I'd been indoors, I'd never have heard it. Even looking up at it, I couldn't really see IT, just the stars and few clouds disappearing behind its wedge-shaped body and reappearing moments later, the most vague impression of its shape as it slipped past.
I don't have radar, but I do have eyes and ears, and it was invisible to all of that- if I ever wondered just how sneaky a B-2 really was, that was an education. He'd have been able to drop everything but the kitchen sink on me before I'd ever have known he existed. I'm used to military birds flying around the DC area- F-15s, UH-60s, etc.- and it never fails to grab my attention, but that thing was eerily sneaky.
(http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/B2SpiritBomber/B2_Slideshow/ss_BS-50001_004_734x265.jpg)
-
A good few years ago at the Southend on Sea Airshow there was a guest appearance. Where I lived was part of the 'run way' or where the jets would fly down on their way to the display area and it was where an airworthy vulcan was based (Southend on Sea Airport) and one day I was in the back garden when I heard this really strange jet engine noise. It was a kind of warbling rumble, not the usual roar you get of a jet, far quieter. Then I looked up and saw an F-117 flying down the 'runway' it was going slow and it was also very low (not as low as the Jaguars use to take it when they showed up, they were below roof height) but it was there, plain as a pikestaff, burbling away. Strangest thing i've ever seen flying in my life.
-
I'm unconvinced they actually fly. I think they use antigrav units salvaged from crashed alien spacecraft. The Air Force hasn't finished reverse engineering their own stuff yet so we don't see it elsewhere, and the F-117s were withdrawn from service when their stash of salvaged spare parts ran low.
-
I'm unconvinced they actually fly. I think they use antigrav units salvaged from crashed alien spacecraft. The Air Force hasn't finished reverse engineering their own stuff yet so we don't see it elsewhere, and the F-117s were withdrawn from service when their stash of salvaged spare parts ran low.
*sigh*
That kind of tech doesn't exist, idiot. You can't create anti-grav tech, even aliens can't do that.
What the Nighthawk did was use repeller system that kept the aircraft in place, but moved the rest of the universe around under it. Which is MUCH simpler. :ugly_stupid:
-
Well, duh, that's just common sense. But to throw off spies, all the parts and paperwork are labeled as antigrav, and the term entered common parlance. Kinda like tanks.
-
Well, duh, that's just common sense. But to throw off spies, all the parts and paperwork are labeled as antigrav, and the term entered common parlance. Kinda like tanks.
Clever. You win a cookie. ;D
-
Clever. You win a cookie. ;D
(http://d2ws0xxnnorfdo.cloudfront.net/meme/564449)
-
(http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/KnAAPO-Su-35-1.jpg)
-
I had the same happen years ago in Gaithersburg, MD, when I first moved to this area. I got off the bus late at night after a late evening at work, and from the bus stop I walked across a grass field to my door. It was a clear night, full moon, and I kept feeling like there was something in the sky to the south of me (my left) as I was walking- out of the corner of my eye I could see it, but if I looked right at it, nothing there but stars.
It passed over almost silently- even after it passed it was surprisingly quiet for being as low as it was (under 3000 feet-ish, at a guess). Quiet, hard to see in its all-black paint, and gone in a heartbeat past the treetops to the north. If I'd been indoors, I'd never have heard it. Even looking up at it, I couldn't really see IT, just the stars and few clouds disappearing behind its wedge-shaped body and reappearing moments later, the most vague impression of its shape as it slipped past.
I don't have radar, but I do have eyes and ears, and it was invisible to all of that- if I ever wondered just how sneaky a B-2 really was, that was an education. He'd have been able to drop everything but the kitchen sink on me before I'd ever have known he existed. I'm used to military birds flying around the DC area- F-15s, UH-60s, etc.- and it never fails to grab my attention, but that thing was eerily sneaky.
(http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/B2SpiritBomber/B2_Slideshow/ss_BS-50001_004_734x265.jpg)
I'll have to see if I still have the video on my computer, but a decade or so ago at a Virginia Tech football game we had a B-2 flyover and you really couldn't hear it until it was overhead
-
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/e/e8/PAK-FA_Flyby.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170915212317)
-
I'm unconvinced they actually fly. I think they use antigrav units salvaged from crashed alien spacecraft. The Air Force hasn't finished reverse engineering their own stuff yet so we don't see it elsewhere, and the F-117s were withdrawn from service when their stash of salvaged spare parts ran low.
The usually-sober Air International magazine once published a piece by the late, usually-sober Bill Gunston that discussed how the B-2 Spirit used "electrogravitic" technology to fly. It was gloriously, spectacularly wrong, but it was a hell of a read.
-
The usually-sober Air International magazine once published a piece by the late, usually-sober Bill Gunston that discussed how the B-2 Spirit used "electrogravitic" technology to fly. It was gloriously, spectacularly wrong, but it was a hell of a read.
An old instructor of mine explained once that anything in aviation electronics you don't know how to explain works via 'FM'. Not the real radio version, but "****** magic". It sounds like Mr. Gunston (a favorite of mine as well normally) may have tried to pull some FM out of his ass. ;D
-
I'm pretty sure that the B-2 was actually built by Waynecorp.
-
An old instructor of mine explained once that anything in aviation electronics you don't know how to explain works via 'FM'. Not the real radio version, but "****** magic". It sounds like Mr. Gunston (a favorite of mine as well normally) may have tried to pull some FM out of his ass. ;D
We have a couple of things at work we say run on PFM, Pure ******* Magic.
-
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/e/e8/PAK-FA_Flyby.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170915212317)
The Vertical Fins on the T-50 just look too small.
-
Sad news - one of the RAF's Red Arrows has crashed today and the engineer in the back died while the pilot ejected and is in hospital
Here is a photo off the BBC website of the plane and a happier Red Arrows photo and then some other random attractive photos of aircraft to cheer people up
-
The Vertical Fins on the T-50 just look too small.
Officially, it's now the Su-57.
-
Officially, it's now the Su-57.
they ever get around to giving it a reporting name? personally i've been using "flatfish" after its profile.
-
I had the same happen years ago in Gaithersburg, MD, when I first moved to this area. I got off the bus late at night after a late evening at work, and from the bus stop I walked across a grass field to my door. It was a clear night, full moon, and I kept feeling like there was something in the sky to the south of me (my left) as I was walking- out of the corner of my eye I could see it, but if I looked right at it, nothing there but stars.
It passed over almost silently- even after it passed it was surprisingly quiet for being as low as it was (under 3000 feet-ish, at a guess). Quiet, hard to see in its all-black paint, and gone in a heartbeat past the treetops to the north. If I'd been indoors, I'd never have heard it. Even looking up at it, I couldn't really see IT, just the stars and few clouds disappearing behind its wedge-shaped body and reappearing moments later, the most vague impression of its shape as it slipped past.
I don't have radar, but I do have eyes and ears, and it was invisible to all of that- if I ever wondered just how sneaky a B-2 really was, that was an education. He'd have been able to drop everything but the kitchen sink on me before I'd ever have known he existed. I'm used to military birds flying around the DC area- F-15s, UH-60s, etc.- and it never fails to grab my attention, but that thing was eerily sneaky.
(http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/B2SpiritBomber/B2_Slideshow/ss_BS-50001_004_734x265.jpg)
I'll just leave this here (Vulcan at Beachy Head)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNO_WuXLNfU
-
they ever get around to giving it a reporting name? personally i've been using "flatfish" after its profile.
Flatfish is a good name and fits the Nato approval. F word for fighter, and a 2 syllable word for a jet.
-
Does NATO still do reporting names? They refer to all Russian submarines since the Akula by their Russian names after all.
-
Does NATO still do reporting names? They refer to all Russian submarines since the Akula by their Russian names after all.
They seem to have stopped. I don't see a NATO name for the Chengdu J-20 either.
Interesting note on the subs though - while NATO refers to classes by their lead ship, Russia observes FASA Warship naming conventions to an extent - the class name is not the name of the lead ship. Hence what the Russians call Project 971 Shchuka, for example, NATO calls the Akula class.
-
they ever get around to giving it a reporting name? personally i've been using "flatfish" after its profile.
I keep typing a good 'F' name for it, but the censortron catches it. Be creative. ^-^
-
I keep typing a good 'F' name for it, but the censortron catches it. Be creative. ^-^
some play off of "PAK"-FA? >:D
-
http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2017/star_wars/x_wing_01.jpg
How feasible is this as an actual design?
-
Maybe not totally impossible, but certainly not easy and with many potential problems. I think the easiest part would be the four engines. Not the most efficient to half-embed them into the fuselage like that and the radar return is not going to be stealthy at all, but that part is probably do-able. The missiles...well, the ones on the lower wings are probably OK, but I'm not sure the ones on the upper wings are. Too much chance of any ordnance there striking the lower wing when released, or the rocket blast from the ordnance damaging the lower wing. So, I'd say that part is out.
I don't know that the upper/lower wingsets at an angle are impossible to control. With a fast enough computer and enough modeling, you could probably get it to fly where you want. Would having a second short-chord wing above the first do anything useful? Not really. Most of the time it is just going to be extra drag. A longer chord on a single wing would be a more efficient way to generate the same lift. It MIGHT be a little better at very low speeds close to stall, but even then, I'm not sure. The biggest problem with the wings is, potentially, how far back they are. The CG looks like it would be fairly far back, but I'd worry the CG and center of pressure are going to be situated in a way that will make it want to swap ends at speed, and drop the butt onto the runway when you try to land it.
Also, yaw control is going to be terrible. No vertical stabilization of any sort and no obvious control surfaces that would easily control yaw. You could try to do some flying-wing style magic to drag one wing set or the other, or maybe use some differential thrust from those engines, but in general this thing would probably suck at controlling yaw.
At least, that is my opinion.
-
The CG looks like it would be fairly far back, but I'd worry the CG and center of pressure are going to be situated in a way that will make it want to swap ends at speed, and drop the butt onto the runway when you try to land it.
You're not wrong. If the design included some lifting body elements to move the CL forward, it might work somewhat, or at least extend the inboard section of the wing forward to include some sweep. But then there's the weird interactions between the wings. What happens to the pressure distributions and how do they compare to the top of the top wing and the bottom of the bottom wing, especially as they come together toward the fuselage?
Nah.
The more I think about this, the more I instinctively start to replicate the F-18. It's just not a good real-world design where you don't get to play with plasteel, repulsor-lifts, and laser cannons.
Best to just let the eyes unfocus a little, eat more popcorn, and cheer when the heroes blast their way in.
-
Isnt the gau30 also most of the fuselage as well?
-
Isnt the gau30 also most of the fuselage as well?
Yeah, that mass is a big part of the CG forcing that design to nose-over so hard.
-
Honestly the best image I've seen of 'xwing as a airplane' is this:
(http://img15.deviantart.net/6611/i/2007/265/a/3/steampunk_x_wing_version_2_by_amoebabloke.jpg)
https://amoebabloke.deviantart.com/art/steampunk-x-wing-version-2-65508931
-
should be Dieselpunk. Anyway, a similar design is the Devastator from Crimson Skies.
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d8/e0/e5/d8e0e523af72178df6a7a30e919bb0b3.jpg)
-
That one's better. There's the canard providing lift on a far forward arm from the CG and the wings themselves are further forward.
Dunno about the wing configuration as I really don't know what the wings would do. Maybe it's fine, but having both positive and negative dihedral might cause some weird effects and I'm still unsure about lift effects when you have upper and lower wings diverging as you move outboard.
-
The two lower engines would be FOD magnets.
-
I know nothing about the rest(especially aerodynamic interactions with X-Wings, were any biplanes ever built with diverging dihedrals?), but I'll definitely agree with center of gravity/center of lift issues. There's no power in the 'verse what'll point that nose any which way but down.
That said, the image is pure badass, and I love it. :)
-
I know nothing about the rest(especially aerodynamic interactions with X-Wings, were any biplanes ever built with diverging dihedrals?), but I'll definitely agree with center of gravity/center of lift issues. There's no power in the 'verse what'll point that nose any which way but down.
That said, the image is pure badass, and I love it. :)
I can only think of wing sweep and staggering, not offsetting dihedral. For example:
(https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/515655Beech17POINCIN9279.jpg)
-
And then:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/WACO_CLASSIC_AIRCRAFT_YMF-F5C_N119SW_03.JPG/800px-WACO_CLASSIC_AIRCRAFT_YMF-F5C_N119SW_03.JPG)
-
There was a Soviet WiGE design that featured a dihedral, but to my knowledge it never was actually built- trying to find info on it, but from work I can't find it at least.
Beyond that, not aware of it ever really being done on anyone's part.
-
There was a Soviet WiGE design that featured a dihedral, but to my knowledge it never was actually built- trying to find info on it, but from work I can't find it at least.
Beyond that, not aware of it ever really being done on anyone's part.
You mean other than normal dihedral? Because we’ve got lots of that from Antonovs to the C5 for negative and almost every Piper ever made for positive.
-
You mean other than normal dihedral? Because we’ve got lots of that from Antonovs to the C5 for negative and almost every Piper ever made for positive.
Sorry, typing from a phone. Yeah, I'm talking like the oddball stuff we see from Crimson Skies and such (a game that was a lot of fun, but which definitely didn't conform its aircraft to anything but the 'rule of cool'. At least the one from earlier had canards to provide some nose lift- a lot of them have the engine up front, the wings all the way at the back along with the horizontal tail surfaces, and would fly about as well as a two-liter bottle.
-
and would fly about as well as a two-liter bottle.
https://youtu.be/7DFynkZq43Y (https://youtu.be/7DFynkZq43Y)
-
Hey, I've seen two-liters with perfectly acceptable flight characteristics! Admittedly those characteristics lent themselves more to the space exploration thread than this one, and I've never seen a bottle do a three-point landing...
Yeah, Crimson Skies planes are something else. Some of them cause me actual pain when I forget to turn off the parts of my brain familiar with things like CG, CL, wing loading, etc, before looking at them. The Devastator is one of the least offensive of the bunch. I could almost be convinced it could actually fly, until I see those crazy-ass ventral tailplanes. My only explanation for that decision involves the phrase "mandatory service contract".
-
Hey, I've seen two-liters with perfectly acceptable flight characteristics! Admittedly those characteristics lent themselves more to the space exploration thread than this one, and I've never seen a bottle do a three-point landing...
Yeah, Crimson Skies planes are something else. Some of them cause me actual pain when I forget to turn off the parts of my brain familiar with things like CG, CL, wing loading, etc, before looking at them. The Devastator is one of the least offensive of the bunch. I could almost be convinced it could actually fly, until I see those crazy-ass ventral tailplanes. My only explanation for that decision involves the phrase "mandatory service contract".
I almost spat out my tea at this. ;D
-
Speaking of fictional planes...
(https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/5/4/3/1/a2481507-209-Skyly.jpg)
(clickable)
I suppose it's drawing a lot from the late German interceptors; I can totally see Kurt Tank designing something like this. Just...dear god how big of an engine (and cannon) does this thing have, for a cockpit that far back? Landing in this thing makes the F4U look simple...
If this were real, what kind of powerplant would it end up with? It's roughly in-line lengthwise with the TA-152, though clearly has much shorter wings and more firepower. Some sort of larger axial cannon, combined with four guns in the wings. I imagine it would be delicious if those could be a 37 in the nose and 20s in the wings, though anything goes.
-
"I know! Let's put a red-hot turbocharger just in front of the cockpit because reasons!" - Jenkins
"That's the attitude Jenkins. Let's see a concept drawing by tomorrow." - Cave Johnson
-
"I know! Let's put a red-hot turbocharger just in front of the cockpit because reasons!" - Jenkins
"That's the attitude Jenkins. Let's see a concept drawing by tomorrow." - Cave Johnson
Was it the Me109 that put the oil pan directly below and in front of the pilot, near-guaranteeing that ground fire would burn him alive?
-
Was it the Me109 that put the oil pan directly below and in front of the pilot, near-guaranteeing that ground fire would burn him alive?
Might have been- sounds familiar anyway. If I recall, the cannon's placement caused a few compromises in where engine components went, and that was one that didn't really occur to anyone as a problem until the first few pilots got pan-seared in their seats over Spain. I THINK it was the 109, anyway.
-
I know nothing about the rest(especially aerodynamic interactions with X-Wings, were any biplanes ever built with diverging dihedrals?), but I'll definitely agree with center of gravity/center of lift issues. There's no power in the 'verse what'll point that nose any which way but down.
That said, the image is pure badass, and I love it. :)
you can always count on Rutan to have something that fits.. not just diverging diherdral but also exteme staggering..
(https://i.redd.it/i64fcgdgu0cz.jpg)
-
Oh well done finding that. I'd forgotten about Rutan designs. It still leaves airflow and pressure interactions when not staggered a complete mystery (unless someone has access to a CFD package and wants to test it), but that is a very good example of using it in a weird, but effective way.
-
When the wing is below the centre of gravity, dihedral induces stability in roll and yaw, and anhedral increases maneuverability by having the opposite effect. When the wing is above the CG, it tends to do the opposite.
So with anhedral below the CG & dihedral above it, it's going to be rolling & yawing like a drunken sailor. Let alone the nose heavy issues.
-
weird, but effective
This is the name of my upcoming Burt Rutan biography. :D
-
When the wing is below the centre of gravity, dihedral induces stability in roll and yaw, and anhedral increases maneuverability by having the opposite effect. When the wing is above the CG, it tends to do the opposite.
So with anhedral below the CG & dihedral above it, it's going to be rolling & yawing like a drunken sailor. Let alone the nose heavy issues.
So it sounds like an X-Wing would result in a highly maneuverable craft, provided you had automatic control systems that kept it from immediately crashing.
Nice for a dogfighter, but maybe not a ground attack craft.
-
I've always had the impression that there's got to be more to it than aerodynamics. And not to pick on the X-wing even- hell, find me where the lift would come from on a Y-wing, B-wing, hell even a TIE fighter. You have to be working with some tech that allows these craft to operate safely in an atmosphere, lift isn't going to do the job.
Actually when you think about it, looking across my admittedly limited knowledge of the Star Wars universe outside the movies, the X-wing might be the most aerodynamically feasible fighter out there- maybe the A-wing's blended body, too. That says a lot. (And isn't even touching craft like the Falcon, with all the aerodynamics and lift-creation capabilities of a broken cinder block)
-
Star Wars ships generally worship at the altar of Our Blessed Lady of Overwhelming Thrust. They don't 'fly' in the sense that a Cessna does. They are basically rockets with really long-running motors. Plus, anti-gravity is a thing in that sci-fi universe so Physics can go suck an egg.
Anywho, at the risk of snuggling up to Rule 4, it appears US military aviation got quite the windfall from the 2018 Omnibus budget bill that passed. The Air Force got funding for re-winging just about the entire A-10 fleet, plus they got something like 56 F-35's off the wishlist section of their budget. The Navy and Marines also got all the F-35's they were asking for plus something like 20 additional F/A-18's beyond what they asked for as well. Leaving all the politics aside, that is an impressive chunk of hardware. Oh, and since this is supposed to be a picture thread...
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/YNYj_P6Z_gZn41xT1QforGpgBoQ=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/IMYFPN47ZNCCTMZ6UKQEJIMSXQ.JPG)
-
Things are looking up for the F35.
F35 showing off its weapon bay
(https://s9.postimg.org/rfdvzg1wf/u9trztenhmg01.jpg)
-
Star Wars ships generally worship at the altar of Our Blessed Lady of Overwhelming Thrust. They don't 'fly' in the sense that a Cessna does. They are basically rockets with really long-running motors. Plus, anti-gravity is a thing in that sci-fi universe so Physics can go suck an egg.
Repulsorlifts for altitude, and then pure thrust to go in whatever direction you want, plus IIRC Stackpole gave them an "etheric rudder" so they can fly like planes in the atmosphere even when they're in space.
The Air Force got funding for re-winging just about the entire A-10 fleet
Staying away from the politics of it, just asking; I thought the A-10 was in a retirement situation with the Air Force. Did that change, if they're doing the upgrade program after all?
(https://taskandpurpose.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/a-10-warthog-elephant-walk-840x420.jpeg)
FEED US PANZERS
-
Is that a pair of Spookies in the back?
-
Hard to tell in that image (also on my phone screen). The bird on the right looks like it has a bit of a bulge on the port side of the fuselage though, so possible. Which... let's be real, after a couple dozen Warthogs work over your front lines, would you even notice a couple of Spectres waving hello?
...would there be any point launching the Spectres, even?
-
Is that a pair of Spookies in the back?
Based on a Google image search, yes https://taskandpurpose.com/a-10-warthog-elephant-walk/
-
Staying away from the politics of it, just asking; I thought the A-10 was in a retirement situation with the Air Force. Did that change, if they're doing the upgrade program after all?
Sort of? The short version is that the Air Force didn’t want to spend money on them. They were basically saying, if we can’t have everything then the A-10 is something we choose to cut. However, congress added money to the budget for re-winging the rest of the active A-10s, even though the Air Force didn’t ask for it. The AF didn’t really change their mind. Congress basically gave them the money as a way of saying, “we don’t want you retiring these yet.”
Obviously it is more complicated, but that is the gist of things.
-
Farfigneuton.
Got the idea from an animaniacs xmas special.
-
Sort of? The short version is that the Air Force didn’t want to spend money on them. They were basically saying, if we can’t have everything then the A-10 is something we choose to cut. However, congress added money to the budget for re-winging the rest of the active A-10s, even though the Air Force didn’t ask for it. The AF didn’t really change their mind. Congress basically gave them the money as a way of saying, “we don’t want you retiring these yet.”
Obviously it is more complicated, but that is the gist of things.
While that's definitely a positive for the Warthog fleet, it's worth remembering the money thrown at the A-6F project by the Navy in the 1990s... just in time for the rewinged birds to get retired anyway. :-\
-
While that's definitely a positive for the Warthog fleet, it's worth remembering the money thrown at the A-6F project by the Navy in the 1990s... just in time for the rewinged birds to get retired anyway. :-\
Difference being, the A-10 actually DOES do something the F-35, F-16, F-22, F-15E, etc. can't do, and that the drones still have problems doing-that is, it keeps soldiers on the ground alive for more than 30 minutes every 24 hours.
The '35 is proof against last generation SAM technologies, but it's about as resistant to gun systems as a paper-mache' pinata.
Full of Jet fuel.
and high explosives.
-
Full of Jet fuel.
That it uses for its hydraulic fluid. Brilliant idea there, bro.
-
Wait, what?
-
In order to save weight, Lockheed designed the Hydraulic systems to operate using the supply of jet fuel.. basically the fuel lines double as hydraulic lines.
it has been a source of major maintenance problems, especially on the STOVL version, despite the fact that the system is supposed to be 'low-maintenance' and 'self-regulating'.
-
In order to save weight, Lockheed designed the Hydraulic systems to operate using the supply of jet fuel.. basically the fuel lines double as hydraulic lines.
it has been a source of major maintenance problems, especially on the STOVL version, despite the fact that the system is supposed to be 'low-maintenance' and 'self-regulating'.
how much weight did they saved with that brilliant idea?
-
And people voluntarily fly it?
-
how much weight did they saved with that brilliant idea?
not enough, it still wound up 3000 lbs overweight, and they had to go through and do a drastic cut of features to get it down to the required weight. as it is, that required weight was 'the weight needed to actually fly' as opposed to the weight promised in the initial proposals. (one of the reasons it is STOVL instead of the full VTOL promised)
features cuts to get it down to size included all ease of manufacture features, the emergency shutoff valve safety systems for the 'fueldralics' system, reduced weapons carriage on the F-35B STOVL version, reduction in fuel insulation, and a ton of others.
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/weight-watchers-13117183/?page=1
many of the problems it has had, like the temperature sensitivity of the fuel, probably stem from many of those changes.
they are still trying to reduce weight even further, by redesigning the engines and such.
-
And people voluntarily fly it?
gah, here's your options:
1. F-35
2. Predator operator.
ONE of those will get you a pilot's license you can roll over into the real world, the other, won't.
of COURSE you'll find people that will sit in the cockpit.
-
F-35 also uses its fuel as a heatsink for the avionics, hence why there was a bit of press a few years ago about the need to keep fuel in the refuelling tankers cool before it is pumped into an F-35.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726 (https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726)
-
Might I suggest changing its codename to "Firetrap?"
-
actually this article has a fairly comprehensive listing of all the current problems the F-35 has.
http://warisboring.com/theres-still-no-finish-line-in-sight-for-the-f-35-program/
-
I have always wanted to know what happens when the aircraft is "bingo" fuel. Does the pilot have to deal with a -1 to hit because the heat is affecting the avionics are not giving him a good targeting solution? Does the aircraft become less maneuverable? ^-^
-
I have always wanted to know what happens when the aircraft is "bingo" fuel. Does the pilot have to deal with a -1 to hit because the heat is affecting the avionics are not giving him a good targeting solution? Does the aircraft become less maneuverable? ^-^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-gAHTmQWhI
(I had to search for a while to find a video that didn't involve people grasping for the low-hanging fruit of "banned toys.")
-
actually this article has a fairly comprehensive listing of all the current problems the F-35 has.
http://warisboring.com/theres-still-no-finish-line-in-sight-for-the-f-35-program/
That was physically painful to read.
-
the F-35 certainly has more than its share of problems.. though half of those are Rule 4 issues. but the hardware issues, IMO , are probably due to the fact the F-35 started as 'beyond cutting edge' in nearly every respect.. turns out that jumping into untested waters on everything means lots of unexpected problems, who knew?
-
'beyond cutting edge' in nearly every respect.. turns out that jumping into untested waters on everything means lots of unexpected problems, who knew?
Its called "bleeding edge" for a reason
-
With all the curves and bumps on the F35 it don't seem as stealthy as a F22.
-
With all the curves and bumps on the F35 it don't seem as stealthy as a F22.
the new term is "low observable", the term "Stealth' stopped being cool when the Serbs demonstrated the ability to shoot down the F-117.
-
See also the Chinese J-20s & J-22s. They're only low-return from in front. But like the Claymore says ...
-
With all the curves and bumps on the F35 it don't seem as stealthy as a F22.
It’s funny what lights up on radar and what doesnt. Most ‘stealth’ features fall into one of two categories: stuff that absorbs radar rather than reflecting it, and stuff that reflects radar, but not back towards where it came from. There is arguably a third group that is basically, put it inside the plane so radar can’t get to it, but anyone can do that so it’s no fun! Although that is why both the F-22 and F-35 have big curves between the front of the jet intakes and the front of the actual compressor. Keeps the radar from being able to reach that big spinning fan. It’s also why the B-2 had the intakes up top and why the competitor to the F-35, the X-32 had that big chin intake thing, so I guess it’s kind of important
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/USAF_X32B_250.jpg)
-
The one consolation right now might be that the F35 at least doesn't look as derpy as the X32 :D
-
i rather liked the X-32 myself.. it was basically a VTOL stealth A-7 Corsair.
-
The X32 with the more normal tail plane I thought looked nicer.
-
The X32 with the more normal tail plane I thought looked nicer.
Would of been nice to see the Sharks mouth on the F32!
-
....basking shark, would that be?
-
He's just a happy, rolly-polly aircraft.
-
The X32 with the more normal tail plane I thought looked nicer.
(http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/xjsf3.files/F-32-2.jpg)
-
He's just a happy, rolly-polly aircraft.
He really is, isn't he?
(https://images2.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED12/50a6640ad8002.jpeg)
-
(http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/xjsf3.files/F-32-2.jpg)
Yep that's it.
-
like i said. VTOL stealth A-7 Corsair.
-
The Doak Model 16/VZ-4 VTOL prototype tilt ducted fan aircraft from the 1950s.
Any resemblance to the Orca from Command & Conquer is purely coincidental
(http://www.shu-aero.com/AeroPhotos_Shu_Aero/Aircraft_C/Doak/Model_16_04_large.jpg)
Okay, it actually has a whole lotta wing, not that visible in the first picture:
(http://www.diseno-art.com/images_9/Doak-VZ-4-2.jpg)
-
Are the rotors fixed at that angle?
-
Are the rotors fixed at that angle?
according to wikipedia, no, and it's an early version of tilt-rotor technology.
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7FOj5NJOp7s/WsIg9r5-7UI/AAAAAAAAAwQ/IQ509oRq5vYfdVw2vdZUjrCdKVKDEBQKQCHMYCw/s0/chrome_2018-04-02_15-24-20.png)
-
Cue the Icarus metaphors in 3...2...1...
-
You asked for it: https://youtu.be/p4w2BZXL6Ss (https://youtu.be/p4w2BZXL6Ss)
-
I would have been very dissapointed if that link was not Iron Maiden.
-
Such a nice photo of that Su-34
-
I would have been very dissapointed if that link was not Iron Maiden.
And 35 years later, I still have the lyrics memorized.
Meanwhile, when I went shopping Monday I forgot about a third of what I went for. :-[
-
On the topic of shopping...
(https://d2ev13g7cze5ka.cloudfront.net/hph/hph48039l_0_1522722035.jpg)
It's 1/48.
-
Assemble-and-paint or cast metal?
-
Assemble-and-paint or cast metal?
Assemble-and-paint, and it comes with a ton of detail parts and preprinted photoetch. Downright gorgeous kit, but just...a 1/48 Valkyrie?! That's Star Destroyer-sized!
-
(https://s31.postimg.org/u50yobh3v/image.jpg)
-
(https://s31.postimg.org/u50yobh3v/image.jpg)
The F16 XL such a different but neat airplane.
-
I always loved the B-70 and remember standing in awe next to one at Wright Patterson. I think that project back then was several billion dollars for 3 airframes, or was it only 2? Still just such a marvelous plane that was sadly outdated by SAM technology by the time it made it off the drawing board. Still it belongs in a sci-fi movie...
-
I always loved the B-70 and remember standing in awe next to one at Wright Patterson. I think that project back then was several billion dollars for 3 airframes, or was it only 2? Still just such a marvelous plane that was sadly outdated by SAM technology by the time it made it off the drawing board. Still it belongs in a sci-fi movie...
Ended up only being two- the one at Wright-Pat is the only survivor, the other having been destroyed in a mid-air collision.
Quite the achievement though- and it appears to have scared the living daylights out of the Soviets. It's hard to not view the MiG-25 as a direct reply to the Valkyrie's development.
(http://toad-design.com/migalley/wp-content/gallery/mig-25/08.jpg)
-
The CIA A-12 Oxcart spyplanes flying across the soviet union with impunity at mach 3+ and 85,000ft+ probably played a part too.
-
I always loved the B-70 and remember standing in awe next to one at Wright Patterson.
The Russians liked it so much they tried making their own: the Sukhoi T-4.
(http://atomictoasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/t4diagram2.jpg)
Though theirs was smaller.
(https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/images/s-100_b-70_comp.gif)
The sole survivor is now on display at Monino.
(http://www.ugluu.mn/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/12642803_586797341467817_1456253300670943547_n.jpg)
-
Quite the achievement though- and it appears to have scared the living daylights out of the Soviets. It's hard to not view the MiG-25 as a direct reply to the Valkyrie's development.
And even worse in the early 70's: the SR-71 was actively demonstrating how hard it is to intercept a Mach 3+ plane, especially with an overly centralised air defense grid. Let alone shot down...
-
The Tu-4 looks like a mini Tu144. That design didn't work either.
-
The Tu-4 looks like a mini Tu144. That design didn't work either.
iirc, they shared resources in the design, so it's not a surprise that they have a similar profile and appearance.
-
Yep that's it.
A scan from a marketing handout from 2001. Probably the only angle it ever looked cool from.
(https://i.imgur.com/5HK13S8.jpg)
The X-32 demo team shared our hangar at Pax. Had we won, the F-32 would have been the loudest production jet ever. That intake was a 40,000 Lb thust powered whistle. It was horrible to work around while it was running on the line. The consensus among us maintainers was, at ground idle the X-32 was louder than two EA-6B's in tension on the cats.
Probably not as bad as the ThunderScreech though
(https://i.imgur.com/xSWXIOt.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H
-
Stealth broken by how loud the plane is.
-
Louder than the T-37?
-
The Tu-4 looks like a mini Tu144. That design didn't work either.
The Tu-144 suffered from really crappy engines, which fortunately for the West are the same ones used by the TU-22M Backfire.
(https://www.militaryimages.net/media/tu-22m-backfire.884/full?d=1144949975)
Looks pretty though.
-
Stealth broken by how loud the plane is.
I can't imagine it was really all that stealthy with all that external ordnance dangling from it.
-
the F-35 is much the same way. that image was meant to show off the kind of load it could carry when stealth was not a concern.. the JSF concept basically called for the use of stealth in the opening sorties, to supress SAM sites and radars, and generally help take air superiority, then the fighters would use external stores afterwards to maximize their ability to do strike missions. reverting back to stealth loadouts when needed for a particular mission.
in practice i doubt it'll ever work that way as long as we're fighting peacekeeping actions and not straight up wars.. too many air defense networks that they can't just flatten due to rules of engagement limits, which could well be hostile anyway.
-
Louder than the T-37?
Yes, but not that screaming meemee T-37 that felt like ice picks in your ears. It was louder in more of a "blunt trauma to the genitals" kind of way.
I can't imagine it was really all that stealthy with all that external ordnance dangling from it.
That config is pretty much how the aircraft was to be used on "Day 2" of the war.
-
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161031161414/1434588925913.jpg)
just shifting the subject from the JSF, to a strike aircraft that actually...y'know, worked.
-
Oh, an aircraft that, y'know, had an even more troubled birthing process than the F-35.
As much as I love the Buc for its looks and abilities , and am ambivalent towards the F-35, it is not a bad aircraft nor a boondoggle yet. The F-16 was for many years regarded as a world-beater, but in 1977 few would have professed that belief. Give the F-35 time to prove itself; it is certainly here to stay, after all.
(Fun fact: the early Buc prototypes resembled what would become the A-6, and it was briefly considered by the USN)
-
Oh, an aircraft that, y'know, had an even more troubled birthing process than the F-35.
As much as I love the Buc for its looks and abilities , and am ambivalent towards the F-35, it is not a bad aircraft nor a boondoggle yet. The F-16 was for many years regarded as a world-beater, but in 1977 few would have professed that belief. Give the F-35 time to prove itself; it is certainly here to stay, after all.
(Fun fact: the early Buc prototypes resembled what would become the A-6, and it was briefly considered by the USN)
um, the F-35 is approaching 20 years of being a boondoggle. Even the F-111 got reliable in less time than that, and both the 111 and teh Buc didn't break the bank while failing to have so much as a single operational squadron after more than two decades' development AFTER adoption. the '35 is a perpetual development program whose seminal features were already borderline obsolete by the time the first (post trials) batch was out of Lockheed's hangar.
a reliable plane that can carry out at least ONE mission is better than a cutting edge plane that can't carry out a mission-the F-35 is like the YAK-38, only without the excuse of inferior technology or combloc quality control issues. (that the lift mechanism bears a strong resemblance, along with the no-gas-tank, high wing loading, microscopic warload, high cost and multiple vulnerabilities to ordinary flying conditions are really , really similar doesn't help.)
this plane: (https://defensesystems.com/~/media/GIG/Defense%20Systems/F35.jpg)
is supposed to replace THIS plane:(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/FA-18_Hornet_VX-4_with_10_AMRAAM.jpg/220px-FA-18_Hornet_VX-4_with_10_AMRAAM.jpg)
and this plane:(https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/lockheed/us/products/f16/f-16-greece/_jcr_content/center_content/image.img.jpg/1510157572013.jpg)
and this plane:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/39/07/76/390776f0eb2082f24c2fea86962ffcd8.jpg)
and THIS plane:
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/multimediaimage/webImage/20170811161356/1434598974803.jpg)
and THIS plane:
(http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/history/images/av-8b_harrier_II_hero.jpg)
and more...
but performs like THIS plane:
(http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/yak38_alexandermarcenco.jpg)
while costing more per-unit than THIS plane:
(http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=70&w=1440&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F12%2Ff-22.jpg%3Fquality%3D85)
'teething problems' doesn't quite cover it.
-
And all those aircraft got released in far more similar forms than they eventually came to be in at present through service improvement programs and block upgrades (F-16 is up to Block 15, yes?). And none of those aircraft were so relatively advanced to their competitors as the F-35 is against its competitors, right?
So, is the contractor or the customer changing the requirements? If so, who is to blame? Depending on the answer--actually, given most of the answers--the problem lies not in the aircraft itself, but the procurement process.
One plane supplanting others is not a new or even poor concept. How many carrier aircraft the one in your first image supplant? Like Nirvana and hair-bands, practically all of them. It had a decade-long development but the technologies that drove it were comparatively tame when laid up against the things the F-35 program is trying to utilize and accomplish.
Of course, you neglected to respond to the salient point that the vaunted Buc's first version had some serious issues and a propensity for killing its aircrew. And later in life they had a tendency to shed airframe parts like wings (over Nevada, of all places; but it's a state in which other angels have fallen, so perhaps it's less embarrassing).
From a rhetorical perspective, try using a picture line-up that is all the same so as not to skew the deck subliminally. Like this:
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/569d6675e6183e46258b7a85-1200-800/f35b.jpg)
Or show all the others in a clean and unloaded state.
-
Pretty ...
(https://pplware.sapo.pt/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/09-698x1024.jpg)
-
just shifting the subject from the JSF, to a strike aircraft that actually...y'know, worked.
And since we're looking at the Buccaneer, here's the aircraft the RAF *wanted* to have rather than then the one the Royal Navy tried to get them to buy in on:
-
And all those aircraft got released in far more similar forms than they eventually came to be in at present through service improvement programs and block upgrades (F-16 is up to Block 15, yes?). And none of those aircraft were so relatively advanced to their competitors as the F-35 is against its competitors, right?
So, is the contractor or the customer changing the requirements? If so, who is to blame? Depending on the answer--actually, given most of the answers--the problem lies not in the aircraft itself, but the procurement process.
One plane supplanting others is not a new or even poor concept. How many carrier aircraft the one in your first image supplant? Like Nirvana and hair-bands, practically all of them. It had a decade-long development but the technologies that drove it were comparatively tame when laid up against the things the F-35 program is trying to utilize and accomplish.
Of course, you neglected to respond to the salient point that the vaunted Buc's first version had some serious issues and a propensity for killing its aircrew. And later in life they had a tendency to shed airframe parts like wings (over Nevada, of all places; but it's a state in which other angels have fallen, so perhaps it's less embarrassing).
From a rhetorical perspective, try using a picture line-up that is all the same so as not to skew the deck subliminally. Like this:
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/569d6675e6183e46258b7a85-1200-800/f35b.jpg)
Or show all the others in a clean and unloaded state.
um, Northrup F-5. crude, simple, 3 sorties a day and 1/10th the maintenance time, effective service life of 50 years, vs. F-111, which was bleeding edge tech when it debuted, and took ten years to get right after delivery, service life less than 20 *(except in Australian service, and even there, it was really really short.)
"Advanced" does not mean "effective" as F-4 pilots found out against Mig-21s and Mig-15s over Vietnam. "advanced" does not mean "Battle Ready", as T-72 drivers found out against upgraded SHERMANS and world-war-two era Centurions in the Sinai.
F-35:
It's a tech demonstrator, and while those are fun, it has no useful range, no warload, can't fly in weather, can't fly at night, can't stay running reliably, has an absurd number of point failures that were known on adoption and still not corrected. It's outperformed in the ground support mission by a forty year old airframe the USAF didn't even want, it's outperformed by a 30 year old upgrade to the F-15, it's outperformed in the dogfighter role by planes one and a half to two generations older, it's outperformed in air-superiority by planes of similar vintage, the 'stealth' profile is based on ADA systems nobody uses anymore because they weren't effective when it was designed. it is unreliable, it is mechanically overcomplicated, it's going on twenty years AFTER winning the tender and still no operational squadrons, because they still haven't got the bugs worked out and it still has no operational mission that's worth the price of the airframe.
in the meantime, it's outpaced by designs a decade older or more from several vendors across the world. The F-16 was a RADICAL airplane for it's time initialy, with a built in instability that required a computer to keep it airborne, the 'lawndarts' reputation was over by the fifth year of flight, and it was so radical that had Carter won a second term, it would still have eaten the F-20 on foreign sales based on the avionics and flight computer alone (and that's WITH the F-16/79 downgrade).
The F-22 (a better airplane) was canceled because of costs, and a big part of that cancellation was the promise that the F-35 would be cheaper. (guess what? nope. not cheaper at all. vastly more expensive with an even narrower functional profile, poorer range, poorer war/stores load, higher wing-loading, poorer overall performance and ten years more technological development between designs at minimum.)
The aircraft's basic design is BAD, Failure16, it's bad because it was designed to try and replace too many disparate, non-overlapping roles. It's not tough enough for close air and it's not got the gas for loiter, it's not nimble in air-to-air, it adds a point failure in that rotating secondary thruster thing (really just a copy of the Yak 36's 'lift jets' idea), the engine is complicated and hard to maintain, the computers still don't work, and are vulnerable to ordinary atmospheric conditions other aircraft shrug off with ease, it's a "Foremast fighter" (meaning that's your operational range without aerial refueling) that can't do th e interceptor role, can't do t he air superiority role, can't do reconaissance, can't do close air support and doesn't have the bomb load for level bombing/smart bombing support (or the linger time).
this is NOT a superior airframe with teething problems, it is the very definition of a boondoggle in that it's an inferior airframe that costs lots of money and doesn't work, and that brass with careers on the line have been struggling to find a mission to justify for it for over a decade when the damn thing should've been taken out back and put down when they couldn't get a delivery-ready, fully functional and operational, battle-ready aircraft in the first five years after the fly-off.
want to keep them around for real? give 'em to NASA and let the guys there work out how to make the systems you're using it to test operationally ready, because as it stands, it's a hazard to aviators, ground crew, and anyone who might have to count on it to deliver the goods in a ground battle.
-
You seem to think that I am a F-35 supporter. I am not; indeed I am ambivalent. My overarching point is that the aircraft you pictured started out with many notable and fatal troubles...but it was using technology that was well understood and in keeping with other airframes then in common usage.
Your quip about F-4s facing NVAF Mig-17/21s is also misplaced; the troubles facing particularly USAF fighters (in comparison to USN aircraft) had a lot more to do with doctrinal and other technological factors. The lessons learned today have a lot to do with America's focus on AEW control as a part of air supremacy. And the WWII-era tanks that sent home so many opposing tankers home in boxes had been upgraded beyond the probable belief of their original designers. (And they weren't T-72s in any event, but comparable tanks like the T-55 and T-62.) Indeed, your argument falls apart because the first example does have something to do with competing technology whereas the second example is of experience, training, and simple elan triumphing over numbers and faulty doctrine.
I never received close air support as an infantryman and now that I am fifteen years out, I won't anytime soon. But I want the aircraft that is on-station to be able to do the job. There are surely cheaper, ultimately better choices for many of the roles envisioned for the airframe. But, sadly, they are not on offer. If the F-35 project is 'too big to fail', that is simply reality. The US DoD isn't buying A-29s for general use, so my argument in this particular instance is not supporting or bemoaning that aspect.
I liked the general concepts behind the F-16XL, YA-7F, and F-20--but they never panned out in the real-world. The F-35 went further than any of those did, and the point of the matter is that it is now either go on or go under time. No one here is changing it, so instead of being snide and snarky, let 2018 show us how it will pan out.
Your concerns are noted, by you and many others and are indeed notable, but the fact is that the F-35 is the future. The F-35 has entered service, and sooner than later it will become truly operational in a colloquial sense. That time is now with squadrons operating them as of this year.
Right now, my personal jury on the F-35 is still out. Time will tell if you and the naysayers are right. Odds are certainly in your favor. But that doesn't mean you are right, not yet. For me, I will wait until the F-35I struts its stuff operationally. If the IAF cannot get it to work, then I will agree with you. If they can, I will stand by my assertion that it wasn't a boondoggle. If it works acceptably, but not at a level in keeping with its costs and developmental troubles then I too will agree that it was a technology demonstrator that got too much support and didn't pan out. (In which case it should have shared the stable with the X-29, and not with the YF-17.)
Suits?
-
You seem to think that I am a F-35 supporter. I am not; indeed I am ambivalent. My overarching point is that the aircraft you pictured started out with many notable and fatal troubles...but it was using technology that was well understood and in keeping with other airframes then in common usage.
Your quip about F-4s facing NVAF Mig-17/21s is also misplaced; the troubles facing particularly USAF fighters (in comparison to USN aircraft) had a lot more to do with doctrinal and other technological factors. The lessons learned today have a lot to do with America's focus on AEW control as a part of air supremacy. And the WWII-era tanks that sent home so many opposing tankers home in boxes had been upgraded beyond the probable belief of their original designers. (And they weren't T-72s in any event, but comparable tanks like the T-55 and T-62.) Indeed, your argument falls apart because the first example does have something to do with competing technology whereas the second example is of experience, training, and simple elan triumphing over numbers and faulty doctrine.
I never received close air support as an infantryman and now that I am fifteen years out, I won't anytime soon. But I want the aircraft that is on-station to be able to do the job. There are surely cheaper, ultimately better choices for many of the roles envisioned for the airframe. But, sadly, they are not on offer. If the F-35 project is 'too big to fail', that is simply reality. The US DoD isn't buying A-29s for general use, so my argument in this particular instance is not supporting or bemoaning that aspect.
I liked the general concepts behind the F-16XL, YA-7F, and F-20--but they never panned out in the real-world. The F-35 went further than any of those did, and the point of the matter is that it is now either go on or go under time. No one here is changing it, so instead of being snide and snarky, let 2018 show us how it will pan out.
Your concerns are noted, by you and many others and are indeed notable, but the fact is that the F-35 is the future. The F-35 has entered service, and sooner than later it will become truly operational in a colloquial sense. That time is now with squadrons operating them as of this year.
Right now, my personal jury on the F-35 is still out. Time will tell if you and the naysayers are right. Odds are certainly in your favor. But that doesn't mean you are right, not yet. For me, I will wait until the F-35I struts its stuff operationally. If the IAF cannot get it to work, then I will agree with you. If they can, I will stand by my assertion that it wasn't a boondoggle. If it works acceptably, but not at a level in keeping with its costs and developmental troubles then I too will agree that it was a technology demonstrator that got too much support and didn't pan out. (In which case it should have shared the stable with the X-29, and not with the YF-17.)
Suits?
suits. Note that the Bradley didn't get a workable model until the israelis insisted on changes before they'd buy one. they may be the only people left who can make the F-35 work...at all.
-
Right on.
And now for something completely different, some aircraft that my father flew aboard:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/EP-3_Orion_and_EA-3B_Skywarrior_of_VQ-2_at_NAS_Rota_1976.JPEG/1024px-EP-3_Orion_and_EA-3B_Skywarrior_of_VQ-2_at_NAS_Rota_1976.JPEG)
-
Pretty ...
(https://pplware.sapo.pt/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/09-698x1024.jpg)
The Su-34 is a weird beast. It really does look like the nose of one plane grafted onto the body of another.
-
I've never seen a more magnificent duckface :)
-
There's a reason the Russians call it утконос
(platypus)
-
subject of my favorite flight sim growing up
(https://www.raf.mod.uk/raf-beta/cache/file/BF5E7934-60E9-4136-8579611CA389C818_source.jpg)
-
There's a reason the Russians call it утконос
(platypus)
Also heard it being called hellduck and thunderquack.
-
Picture sizes, people. I do NOT want to have warnings dropped in here over that.
-
The F-35? At this stage, I'm just like; "Do it. I dare you. Bring it the heck ON."
Because if it can do 85%+ of what's claimed it'll be AWESOME.
Anything less than that, it will go down in history as either the M16 of aircraft or the biggest waste of money of all time. Because for the ammount of $$$ being put into it, at this stage, doctrinally and technically we need to be AT LEAST 85% right on this one.
And if it fails? Well...I do like to watch the world burn.
-
Anything less than that, it will go down in history as either the M16 of aircraft...
What do you mean by this?
-
I am curious as well, since I never had a problem with my M16 or M4 when in service.
-
Perhaps meaning that the M16 initially had some teething problems that needed to be worked out, but after that has gone onto a 50 year service life.
-
Hmm...good idea.
And how about an aircraft that might have been:
(https://www.defenceaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/image004.jpg)
-
looks like an X 31?
-
Oops. IAI Lavi: http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/iai_lavi.htm
(http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/iai_lavi.htm)
-
Hmm...good idea.
And how about an aircraft that might have been:
(https://www.defenceaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/image004.jpg)
It actually did get produced.
In China as the J-10. ;)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sfhtb3UbPJM/UInRrMc46mI/AAAAAAAACRs/FwLhga0Ldk4/s1600/j+10+chinese+militery+fighter+aircraft+%281%29.jpg)
-
The F-35? At this stage, I'm just like; "Do it. I dare you. Bring it the heck ON."
Because if it can do 85%+ of what's claimed it'll be AWESOME.
Anything less than that, it will go down in history as either the M16 of aircraft or the biggest waste of money of all time. Because for the ammount of $$$ being put into it, at this stage, doctrinally and technically we need to be AT LEAST 85% right on this one.
And if it fails? Well...I do like to watch the world burn.
If it does 15% of what the claims were, it wouldn't be a non-functional testbed 20 years after adoption. Perhaps meaning that the M16 initially had some teething problems that needed to be worked out, but after that has gone onto a 50 year service life.
difference being, the 'teething problems' of the M-16 were resolved in a matter of months, and the base design was a down-scale of another rifle that already worked, and had foreign sales (the AR-10), and the M-16 was not given a bottomless well of funding without a field-ready example over the course of now 4 administrations, covering 3 decades, (1990s to present), while the rest of the world continued to improve and refine methods for countering it's chief 'advantage' over other, better airframes (the Stealth concepts underlying the layout, build, even materials have been the target of every research establishment in the world-not to copy, but to counter, since the eighties.)
again, "Warload, range, and role". The F-35 can't perform any of it's stated roles, (Much like the F-111, only without competing programs that actually get results and cancel the damn thing after a decade) what it CAN do, is keep Lockheed in texas open, and keep thousands of engineers and PR people employed trying to make it 'work' (kinda like Fusion: it's gonna have the bugs worked out 'any day now' for the last 20 years in the case of the F-35, just like Fusion's been 'twenty years down the road' since the 1950's.)
it's what isn't being delivered that is the problem-I'm sure they're racking up all kinds of hours working out how to sell it, how to make it do 1/10th what the tender claimed it would do, how to get it to perform up to a sortie rate of, say, the F-117A (but with an even smaller bomb load, shorter fuel range, higher maintenance cost, and more restrictive flying environment...)
but the root of the design is already planned for a warfighting paradigm that it not only could not fill, but has already outpaced it. It's kinda like using a Million Dollar smart bomb to paste a thousand dollar pickup truck driven not by a drug lord or high-ranking terrorist, but Joe the frikking mailman. it isn't fit to fight other aircraft, it isn't fit for close air support, it isn't fit for medium, never mind long, range strike missions.
The litany of vulnerabilities we KNOW about from government documents, the hearings on the testing program, the results of those programs, the litany of 'fixes', it more and more resembles the Yak-38, and that's a very bad thing to resemble.
-
what it CAN do, is keep Lockheed in texas open, and keep thousands of engineers and PR people employed trying to make it 'work'
And that right there is where things start to edge into politics and that's where I step in. The subject is now closed for discussion. Please take it elsewhere if you want to continue debating.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/50/be/58/50be5811ec42fa1240749d2b5026c87f--fighter-aircraft-fighter-jets.jpg)
Suddenly, AARDVARK.
-
fighters coming out of the sun - the only image I can find
-
have an original.. :)
(https://bombadradio.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/1230888014_339045_fotonoticia_normal_05b15d-e1498416402942.jpg)
(Apocalypse Now)
(see [Link] (https://bombadradio.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/forceawakens18of100/) for more examples of SW homages to classic film scenes)
(also.. don't forget to resize!)
-
(http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/12495/p12495_p_v8_aa.jpg)
i don't remember anything about this movie except that it was bad
-
I remember one scene where the female love interest used a bunch of parts from her helicopter to build a shoulder-launch mount for a Hellfire missile.
-
I remember one scene where the female love interest used a bunch of parts from her helicopter to build a shoulder-launch mount for a Hellfire missile.
I thought it was a stinger, but yeah this sucked, tried redoing all the aerial scenes from Top Guns using helps
And nobody stopped them
-
Tommy Lee Jones doing his best Tommy Lee Jones impression (so think The Fugitive / US Marshals but as US Army helo pilots) is about the only good thing about that movie.
Brad Little (Tommy Lee Jones): "Mr. Preston, this operation will be a failure if we all die!"
Brad Little (Tommy Lee Jones): "Rules of engagement: one, whoever sees the other person first is the winner; two, whoever gets seen first is toast."
-
I seem to remember it was a Stinger as well. But yeah it sucked. Top Gun in Helicopters, Days of Thunder was Top Gun in Cars. Even 30 years ago they were running out of ideas.
-
I seem to remember it was a Stinger as well. But yeah it sucked. Top Gun in Helicopters, Days of Thunder was Top Gun in Cars. Even 30 years ago they were running out of ideas.
It was a stinger, but that doesn't stop the movie from being quite possibly one of the worst movies made in the eighties. one of the more amazing things to come out of it is that Tommy Lee Jones and Nick cage managed to still have careers after.
one of the plane types My Stepfather worked on in the early sixties as a camera tech:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Douglas_RB-66C_Destroyer_in_flight_061102-F-1234P-036.jpg)
-
I remember one scene where the female love interest used a bunch of parts from her helicopter to build a shoulder-launch mount for a Hellfire missile.
Nah, it was a stinger, and she didn't cobble together a launcher, it was, for some reason, already an infantry launcher with some essential parts stored in the helo. Not sure that makes it better...
-
Nah, it was a stinger, and she didn't cobble together a launcher, it was, for some reason, already an infantry launcher with some essential parts stored in the helo. Not sure that makes it better...
that's actually standard equipment with most stinger-pack type systems, (admittedly, I"m working from memory dealing with the first gen Avenger crews.) The Missile comes in a sealed round, and that sealed round can be swapped from the vehicle mount to an infantry mount pretty easily.
-
The only good thing about that film is a Saab J-35 Draken used in some scenes. I love that plane.
(https://www.frihetskamp.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/640px-SAAB-35-Draken.jpg)
Seriously. It looks amazing. It's like a 1950's vision of the future.
-
And then there's her more beautiful descendent, the J-37 Viggen
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Saab_AJS-37_Viggen_37098_52_%28SE-DXN%29_%289256079273%29.jpg)
-
If you're going to post a Viggen, make sure it's in that bitchin' splinter camouflage.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/78/f6/83/78f68308f13294fd127ba70ddb78c78a--saab-viggen-luis.jpg)
-
The simulator part in Firebirds was the best part. About the 3 min part is maybe some of the best acting by a Mr. Nick Cage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyuHA_zAOM
-
I like the look of the Draken more than I like the Viggen, but they are both amongst my favourite "modern" planes.
I'm also quite fond of the J29 Tunnan ("Barrel") and was very happy when I got to see one flying a couple of years back.
-
Saab sure does know how to build a pretty plane. Even Gripen is, if not the best looking of the modern generation, at least high on the list.
(https://www.airforce-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/12/GripenEequipment.jpg)
-
The simulator part in Firebirds was the best part. About the 3 min part is maybe some of the best acting by a Mr. Nick Cage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyuHA_zAOM
"How 'bout you, strawberry gum?"
(http://puu.sh/A2zAS/9998c2d829.png)
amazing.
-
The simulator part in Firebirds was the best part. About the 3 min part is maybe some of the best acting by a Mr. Nick Cage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyuHA_zAOM
I disagree, as it does not involve bees
-
I also disagree as it does not involve misfiling anything.
Meanwhile have an airplane that's had a busy day today. This one in particular's got an interesting color scheme...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/f6/12/c6f6121ffbba8c30f38509a77bc4b9b6.jpg)
-
What is that plane?
-
A Panavia Tornado operated by Her Majesty's Royal Air Force
-
Soon to be retired with Typhoons taking on the strike role in addition. As soon as Storm Shadow and Brimstone completes integration anyway.
-
Is anyone making a modern swing-wing design, or is that no longer something that's considered worthwhile?
-
Is anyone making a modern swing-wing design, or is that no longer something that's considered worthwhile?
i believe it has mostly been deemed too maintenance heavy for the benefit..
-
More structurally complex than necessary these days, a good big semi-delta wing is almost as efficient at high speed while still retaining lots of internal space for fuel, landing gear, weapons, etc. Stealth also is a thing; not having the big sleeves and gloves and having a nice smooth blend in the wing interface helps reduce signature a little.
-
Is anyone making a modern swing-wing design, or is that no longer something that's considered worthwhile?
Variable Geometry costs a lot in terms of dead weight and internal volume for what are really not very significant benefits. a cranked delta (like on the F-16XL, Eurofighter Typhoon, etc.) gives the same (or very close) performance at significantly less maintenance time, less dead weight, and less mandated internal volume for that dead weight.
Basically this translates into more internal volume for fuel, avionics, a higher payload-to-weight ratio, better thrust-to-payload ratio, longer flight times on the same airframe mass with the same engines, quicker sortie turnaround (since you have fewer mechanical systems to maintain), plus better g-loading peformance (assuming the same quality of man-hours were spent on design), and lower production costs (once the factory's up and running.)
For example, the F-15 and the F-14 are from the same generation, the 14 is heavier, has a shorter service life, lower thrust/ton, longer turnaround on the ground for maintenance, is more expensive to produce, and was obsoleted out of production, while we're still building F-15s that cover more roles, more effectively, at lower operating costs with more flight hours relative to maintenance hours (not just because of fuel use, but also time-on-ground getting fixed).
basically, variable geometry was a technique to overcome specific problems: low speed manuevring and runway perfomance while retaining at-altitude airspeed requirements. each 'wing' in a swing-wing design is a full-blown WING, but it concentrates your load on a set of moving parts, instead of distributing it to the airframe- those parts have to be relatively heavy (and absorb expensive alloys), but that's just to get 'vanilla' performance. a fixed wing is more rigid, which means it can take more loading for a given mass, and since it's not a moving part, it requires less upkeep and maintenance, and what maintenance and upkeep it does require, is simpler, and less costly, which in turn translates into less time 'in the barn' being maintained, and more time "in the air" building on pilot and engineering experience.
The F-111, F-14, Mig-23, Tornado, etc. etc. all required more airframe maintenance than their fixed-wing counterparts. That translates into time on ground between sorties, and in a strike role, time on ground between sorties is time your ground forces aren't getting air support.
-
Alright experts, question: How does the F15C and F14 compare, as superiority fighters?
-
Alright experts, question: How does the F15C and F14 compare, as superiority fighters?
So I am definitely no expert but have picked up a sense that the F-14 was always one upgrade away from being awesome and while the F-15 could pretty much always expect support from AWACS or similar the F-14 was supposed to operate further out at the edge of the range of the E-2s so needed a second seater.
To some extent I think the USN opted to go with the F-18 as the chassis for upgrading while the USAF opted to upgrade the F-15, I think a vague and probably inaccurate equivalent would be if the USAF had focused more on upgrading the F-16 than the F-15 but the USN has more reason to want to operate a smaller number of airframes. Also, in terms of range, the USN can just drive the carriers closer to the enemy but the USAF can't move their bases as easily.
I think they're subtly different but both were great through much of the 1980s but then the USAF opted to keep making the F-15 more awesome while the USN lost interest in the F-14 over the F-18.
-
Do you want to get a rough idea of how expensive swing-wings are to maintain in an air-worthy condition?
(http://www.f-111.net/images/cold-proof1.jpg)
(http://www.f-111.net/images/cold-proof2.jpg)
(http://www.f-111.net/images/cold-proof3.jpg)
(http://www.f-111.net/images/cold-proof4.jpg)
This is a photo from the Cold Proof Test Facility at McClellan AFB. To test the wings against in-flight failure, they cool the facility to -40 deg Celsius then loaded up with hydraulic rams to simulate the forces while the aircraft is flying to try to identify fatigue cracks in wing and support structures. If you look closely at the photos you can see how much they are bending the wings (look for the wing between and above the fans on the left of the photo).
After the USAF retired the last of their F-111 and decommissioned the Cold Proof Test Facility at McClellan AFB, the RAAF built their own Cold Proof Test Facility at RAAF Base Amberley. Not it is not a cheap empty hangar, it has a specially constructed floor to house the hydraulic rams and the structure for holding the aircraft while being tested and an industrial freezer air-conditioning system so that the entire hangar space can be brought down to -40 deg Celsius (from 40 deg Celsius ambient temperature that occurs in summer at RAAF Base Amberley).
This photo is from the Cold Proof Test Facility at RAAF Base Amberley
(http://www.f-111.net/articles/AirForceToday/cpltwingtest.jpg)
Would you like to know more?
http://www.f-111.net/cold.htm (http://www.f-111.net/cold.htm)
http://www.f-111.net/articles/AirForceToday/AMBColdProof.htm (http://www.f-111.net/articles/AirForceToday/AMBColdProof.htm)
-
So I am definitely no expert but have picked up a sense that the F-14 was always one upgrade away from being awesome and while the F-15 could pretty much always expect support from AWACS or similar the F-14 was supposed to operate further out at the edge of the range of the E-2s so needed a second seater.
To some extent I think the USN opted to go with the F-18 as the chassis for upgrading while the USAF opted to upgrade the F-15, I think a vague and probably inaccurate equivalent would be if the USAF had focused more on upgrading the F-16 than the F-15 but the USN has more reason to want to operate a smaller number of airframes. Also, in terms of range, the USN can just drive the carriers closer to the enemy but the USAF can't move their bases as easily.
I think they're subtly different but both were great through much of the 1980s but then the USAF opted to keep making the F-15 more awesome while the USN lost interest in the F-14 over the F-18.
a lot of that decision had to do with maintenance downtime vs. sortie rate and flying hours. as Feenix74 points out, they had to run regular maintenance checks using special hangars to catch metallic strain issues that don't (largely) trouble non-swing-wing airframes.
and that's above and beyond the maintenance requirements for the actuators that are taking all those loads, which require additional lubrication and inspections above and beyond what would be 'normal' for a fixed-wing aircraft with a similar performance envelope (along with the cost-size-complexity of doing that envelope with significant amounts of deadweight and deadspace at the root of each wing.)
The USN's choice to drop the F-14 was largely based on 'bang for the buck' in terms of man-hours vs. flying time, the ability to keep aircraft airworthy vs. the cost of specialist facilities, and the operational needs of the fleet vs. the cost of maintenance and replacement.
The real surprise is, they dropped so many in the water as 'reef' material instead of harvesting the titanium box structure for reprocessing, given that sources of Ti in the US are pretty slim, and most of it has to be imported (bumping up the cost by quite a lot, actually).
-
The cost to reclaim and rework titanium is non-trivial. I'm certainly not anti-recycling, but for some things it's actually cheaper and easier to just start from scratch.
-
The cost to reclaim and rework titanium is non-trivial. I'm certainly not anti-recycling, but for some things it's actually cheaper and easier to just start from scratch.
true. still it's disappointing.
-
here are some other pictures of aircraft as discussion of the F-14 can bring up the Other Operator
-
Yeah they could have at least parked one of those F14s out at my parents farm...
-
I trust the bean-counters did the math before dumping the titanium.
-
Swing wings got used for different purposes.
- the Mig-23's was all about (comparatively) low speed takeoff/landing capability. Designed to be an interceptor operating off rough fields, it needed that high/low speed potential.
- The F-111's was about combining cruise mode with supersonic dash over target. Almost the opposite end of the spectrum. Takeoffs & landings were facilitated by the low sweep, but (for a strategic bomber) hardly a priority. (Let's not talk about the F-111A. It's a silly place ...)
- The Tornado was half-and-half, IIRC - lower landing/takeoff speeds for short/rough strip capacity, plus over-the-target dash.
- the F-14's was all about endurance. Cat shots off ships were (IIRC) with wings fully swept. Given the F-14 was initially meant to be the "Missileer" - flying in lazy circles while firing missiles at over-the-horizon targets - the sweep was all about fuel economy. The fact that it was (typical Navy) over-engineered, with inherent flexibility, enabled it to take on the air combat role.
-
Cat shots off ships were (IIRC) with wings fully swept.
I did not know that.
-
- the F-14's was all about endurance. Cat shots off ships were (IIRC) with wings fully swept. Given the F-14 was initially meant to be the "Missileer" - flying in lazy circles while firing missiles at over-the-horizon targets - the sweep was all about fuel economy. The fact that it was (typical Navy) over-engineered, with inherent flexibility, enabled it to take on the air combat role.
Pretty sure every cat shot I have seen of an F14 was with wings extended. Also from everything I have picked up on its development over the years was that early on the Navy's requirements evolved into ACM especially after ADM Tom Connolly became involved in the project (after his testimony was considered the death blow for the F111B).
-
Ugh. I can't get that 80s monologging info-dump from Top Gun out of my head.
I mean that in only the most hilarious sense of ear worm.
-
Ugh. I can't get that 80s monologging info-dump from Top Gun out of my head.
I mean that in only the most hilarious sense of ear worm.
Better call Kenny Loggins because you're in the DANGER ZONE - Archer
-
- the F-14's was all about endurance. Cat shots off ships were (IIRC) with wings fully swept.
https://youtu.be/BQIYAJvzNxY (https://youtu.be/BQIYAJvzNxY)
https://youtu.be/QmOSDBoCFdU (https://youtu.be/QmOSDBoCFdU)
In addition to loitering on station, wing extended for landing and takeoff allows for flap to be extended and therefore generating additional lift at lower speeds that occur during landing and take-off.
Fully swept gives the better low-drag profile for airburner high-speed dash from one patrol sector to another or from launch off the carrier out to intercept a bogie when launched from "Ready 5".
-
The wings were extended out for carrier launch on a F14. The wings need to provide lift at the take off speeds from a carrier. Wings out for low speed and better manuver, swept back for high speed.
-
You never launch or land with the wings swept back. You lose far too much lift, because you're going only about 170mph - NOT 700 - after catapult launch. You'll never see a picture of a Tomcat doing either, even on land-based runways.
-
since this scene was filmed by putting two F-14's up in the air with a pair of (vismodded) T-6's, probably the best example of F-14 low speed flight in film..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkOsXNF_ZoM
-
Looks like I got that wrong. Elders moment.
Still, if a Vigilante can take off of a carrier, can't see why an F-14 couldn't do a swept launch if it had to. Heck, Crusaders launched with folded wings ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/7b/74/177b74f6a85901217943352a0ca191f9.jpg)
Show'em how it's done, Grandpa!
-
since this scene was filmed by putting two F-14's up in the air with a pair of (vismodded) T-6's, probably the best example of F-14 low speed flight in film..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkOsXNF_ZoM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkOsXNF_ZoM)
watching that, there is a lot of cutting between F-14s with wings back and wings forward although there is a nice shot of the wings being swept back
I did twitch a bit at the "Zero" not just exploding when hit by a blast from a 20mm cannon given their lack of armour, self sealing fuel tanks etc
The Crusader might be able to take off with wings folded but the (early) F-14s were hampered by engines that didn't live up to the promised power levels so I'm not sure an F-14 would manage to take off - memory suggests normal take off roles were pilot with HOTAS and RIO with hand on ejection lever
-
Looks like I got that wrong. Elders moment.
Still, if a Vigilante can take off of a carrier, can't see why an F-14 couldn't do a swept launch if it had to. Heck, Crusaders launched with folded wings ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/7b/74/177b74f6a85901217943352a0ca191f9.jpg)
Show'em how it's done, Grandpa!
The wings were so far back and in the dark people didnt notice until late. The plane would have to dump its payload and then come right back around to land.
The Last of the Gunfighters was a pretty neat plane.
-
Looks like I got that wrong. Elders moment.
Still, if a Vigilante can take off of a carrier, can't see why an F-14 couldn't do a swept launch if it had to. Heck, Crusaders launched with folded wings ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/7b/74/177b74f6a85901217943352a0ca191f9.jpg)
Show'em how it's done, Grandpa!
One of the scenes from the Area 88 anime (believe it was in the series, not the OVA, but could be mistaken) utilized the Crusader's ability to remain flying with the wings up as a method it used to get by a trap that killed most of the other mercs making their attack runs, and still hit the target after the trap was bypassed...
I do love that fighter...
Ruger
-
that which might have been:
(https://img.gta5-mods.com/q95/images/f-16xl-usaf-add-on-replace/4fb076-GTA5%202016-06-15%2007-53-46-81.jpg)
-
Netherlands?
-
Netherlands?
Not sure the Netherlands has the hills.
-
That's from a video game. Specifically, a Grand Theft Auto 5 mod.
-
Netherlands?
She's got US markings
-
She's got US markings
I know, but I was confused about the photoshopped colors on the tail. I thought they were referring to Netherlands, Luxembourg, or something else tricolored.
-
I know, but I was confused about the photoshopped colors on the tail. I thought they were referring to Netherlands, Luxembourg, or something else tricolored.
Red, white and blue are such uncommon colours... France, Britain, USA as well!
-
Red, white and blue are such uncommon colours... France, Britain, USA as well!
Er, literally. As in red horizontal top, white middle, blue bottom.
-
Er, literally. As in red horizontal top, white middle, blue bottom.
Well, ok, so Britain and France tend to have them vertically
-
I think I'll shut up now.
-
The little winged star under the tail should've also been a tip-off. ;)
-
The little winged star under the tail should've also been a tip-off. ;)
Guys. Seriously. None of that was the point I was attempting to make.
I'm fully aware that the original image is of a test plane in the US. I'm merely musing about the intent of the person who photoshopped the colors and where they are most likely from. I found the light blue color intriguing and an unlikely selection of someone from the US.
-
The light blue is because they used a crappy method in Photoshop. Basically, they just added a layer with the colors, then adjusted opacity until it looked sort-of okay. I'm sure they were trying for Supreme America Patriotism, but failed.
-
Anyhow, that's enough sidebar talk. It was a silly random thought.
-
Alright experts, question: How does the F15C and F14 compare, as superiority fighters?
Our resident expert, the esteemed Deathshadow, in another thread:
F-14:
If you like big fat money chewers with the fuel economy of the carrier that it launches from, based around a radar that was next to useless in look-down (against below-horizon targets), who's only advantage in a fight was it's ungodly lift letting it get down to low speeds that most jets wouldn't dare to go to; and that frankly when used 'properly' put the plane so low on energy the pathetically weak engines rarely allowed it to recover which is why pretty much ANYTHING made after 1970 could pwn it in air combat -- and even the plane that it supplanted in the supply chain when the USN decided to shutup General Dynamics AGAIN could outmanuever it. (I've actually seen a turning fight between Sparky and the FatCat... fatty fat fatty man the harpoons didn't fare well)
It was ridiculous for it to have stayed in service as long as it did, ESPECIALLY with it's pathetically low operational readyness; A Sparrow was more likely to hit a target than a F-14 was to be ready for a mission -- a dreadful state of affairs... especially since from about the mid 80's onward it cost as much in a year to keep them up and running as it would have to replace them.
But it looked pretty for recruitment opportunities like that giant steaming pile you alluded to...
F-14 being an air superiority fighter:
WRONG. It was primarily a POINT DEFENSE INTERCEPTOR -- it is about as far from being an air superiority platform as the F-104... Piss poor turn rate, bleeds energy like a steel sieve, radar next to useless in look-down -- the ONLY thing about it that even comes close is it's absurd amount of lift, low wing loading, and fuel out the yazoo; but when it lacks the energy to sustain a high-g turn, that is not a ASF... No matter how much hollywierd wants it to be.
F-15:
A fine machine, though it's aging poorly. With a radar cross-section making even the F-16's anemic radar able to see it out at the 80 mile mark in lookup (50 miles lookdown), it's on the losing side of a shoot-first scenario. It's still useful in the point-defense role, but it is no longer the air superiority platform it once was. It's biggest shortcoming is it's fuel consumption and lack of low speed handling -- which is what makes the -E a total pig... but as a ASF it was a fine aircraft for it's time; but that time has passed.
On my wall, signed by 7 Spitfire pilots who were on Malta during the '42 blitz:
(https://i.imgur.com/k4In0rj.jpg)
-
One of the scenes from the Area 88 anime (believe it was in the series, not the OVA, but could be mistaken) utilized the Crusader's ability to remain flying with the wings up as a method it used to get by a trap that killed most of the other mercs making their attack runs, and still hit the target after the trap was bypassed...
it was in all three. introduced in the Manga, and shown in both the OVA and the series. they apparently loved the Fangs.*
*the trap was named 'the fangs of the desert', and was a defense system for a military target the Area88 crew had to hit.. exactly what varied between versions. they were basically big lattice works fitted with Jato rockets on the top corners so that they could m flat to the ground (under a layer of sand) to standing vertically and blocking off all paths for low level bombing, in an instant. the holes in the frameworks were big enough for folded wing crusaders, but the F-4 strike force Shin and Boris were escorting couldn't make it. the TV series added an interesting twist in that the third man in the 'main character' team was Kim, in his harrier.. who viffed into a hover, climbed over the obstacle, and then pulled a higher altitude bombing run instead.
-
So since we're talking about the F-14 already, what about the Phoenix missile?
-
From my understanding the phoenix, though it was a much ballyhooed system, never really lived up that promise. Being less reliable than even the sparrow missile system.
-
From what I've heard, it was designed to hit one target... the BACKFIRE, and at maximum range. Honestly, it was less important that it could actually do it vice if the Russians believed it could do it...
-
From what I've heard, it was designed to hit one target... the BACKFIRE, and at maximum range. Honestly, it was less important that it could actually do it vice if the Russians believed it could do it...
Well there is that, and its interesting now in the land of the internet reading up on all that stuff that absolutely wowed me in the 80s as a kid. And now finding out "not so much" much like all the folks that were pushing for the adoption of the F20 back then, were paid for by Northrup.
-
And yet nothing will take its absolutely gorgeous aesthetics away.
(https://c.wallhere.com/photos/09/ae/1920x1080_px_airplane_clouds_Grumman_F_14_Tomcat_Jets_Military_Aircraft_Silhouette_sunlight-799335.jpg!d)
-
Good one!
I do like it's face-on profile:
(http://www.atfx.fr/photos/f14c.jpg)
Shows off the varying dihedral and angle of the engine intakes very well. It strikes a person just how little there is; just a cockpit, wings, engines, and radar attached to each other.
Also the airplane on display at the Seattle Flight Museum:
(http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/images/Pacific%20NW%20Museums/Museum%20of%20Flight/f-14-107w-1.jpg)
-
Question for those familiar with Battletech and real-world planes(needless to say, this thread is convenient): Among other projects, I'm in the midst of converting a cheap die-cast almost-C-17 as seen in the center of this picture (https://images.frys.com/art/product/300x300/7192212.01.prod.jpg) into a Zugvogel E, carrying twin MML-5s in the nose, a RAC-2 out the tail and twin AMS in both locations. The weapons themselves are pretty easy, going in a chin mount and a...uh... tail-chin mount, but I'm wondering what logical places might be for Battletech-style AMS units on a real-world aircraft?
-
Question for those familiar with Battletech and real-world planes(needless to say, this thread is convenient): Among other projects, I'm in the midst of converting a cheap die-cast almost-C-17 as seen in the center of this picture (https://images.frys.com/art/product/300x300/7192212.01.prod.jpg) into a Zugvogel E, carrying twin MML-5s in the nose, a RAC-2 out the tail and twin AMS in both locations. The weapons themselves are pretty easy, going in a chin mount and a...uh... tail-chin mount, but I'm wondering what logical places might be for Battletech-style AMS units on a real-world aircraft?
I suppose I'd go with B-29-style setups with small turret mounts- two ventral, two dorsal, pairing them up behind the cockpit above and under and again before the tail. Basically like the lovely lady here, with the same mount positions aped underneath as well.
(http://pmdvod.nationalgeographic.com/NG_Video/874/931/B-29_Superfortress_640x360_144798275854.jpg)
-
Question for those familiar with Battletech and real-world planes(needless to say, this thread is convenient): Among other projects, I'm in the midst of converting a cheap die-cast almost-C-17 as seen in the center of this picture (https://images.frys.com/art/product/300x300/7192212.01.prod.jpg) into a Zugvogel E, carrying twin MML-5s in the nose, a RAC-2 out the tail and twin AMS in both locations. The weapons themselves are pretty easy, going in a chin mount and a...uh... tail-chin mount, but I'm wondering what logical places might be for Battletech-style AMS units on a real-world aircraft?
I feel I want to use a different term for the tail-chin mount. A fin in a similar place on a shark or similar would be an anal fin.
I do agree with JadeHelbie that the set up on a WW2 bomber would be the most logical placements for modelling.
-
I feel I want to use a different term for the tail-chin mount. A fin in a similar place on a shark or similar would be an anal fin.
Hmm makes sense. So thats why they call them ball turrets.
There's also these:
(http://www.ausairpower.net/USAF/ABL_ALL.jpg)
(https://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Airborne-Laser-ABL-MDA-photo-ablspur-1024x683.jpg)
IMHO a pair of belly and dorsal mounts makes a lot of sense coverage wise.
-
All of this makes me want to make jokes that will get me banned :'(
-
You think that's bad, the toy in question has two fins in that area, with the RAC going to be placed between them. ^-^
I was originally planning to put the AMS on side mounts, but the over-under approach makes sense. I'll do that for the nose guns, but I think the T-tail would be a major hindrance to a dorsal aft mount. Side mounts would be less obstructed, and given that most aircraft losses in Battletech games come from ground fire, being able to point more defense guns downward seems wise.
-
Ohhhh, T-tail. OK, well, AMS mounts have the advantage of being small and unmanned, so mounting one in weird places (like, say, the head of a Hellbringer) isn't hard. Perhaps two ventral, one dorsal behind the cockpit, and one atop the T-tail itself? No reason you couldn't have the mount up there, with power and ammo feeds running up through the fin itself.
Let's be real. It's Battletech. A little handwavium is the only way to get through these designs.
-
Ohhhh, T-tail. OK, well, AMS mounts have the advantage of being small and unmanned, so mounting one in weird places (like, say, the head of a Hellbringer) isn't hard. Perhaps two ventral, one dorsal behind the cockpit, and one atop the T-tail itself? No reason you couldn't have the mount up there, with power and ammo feeds running up through the fin itself.
Let's be real. It's Battletech. A little handwavium is the only way to get through these designs.
Also, aerodynamics tends to be something that happens to other people in BT
-
Imagine the kinds of stuff the likes of Rutan or the Skunk Works could put out if they were allowed to handwave things like volume and airflow...
-
Also, aerodynamics tends to be something that happens to other people in BT
I see you too have used a Thunderbird.
-
Let's be real. It's Battletech. A little handwavium is the only way to get through these designs.
Also, "a little"?
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LonelyPoliticalLamb-max-1mb.gif)
-
I see you too have used a Thunderbird.
Hey, that thing's got to be a smooth ride compared to a Hydaspes.
-
I just want to know how on earth you're supposed to land a Vandal. :o
-
The two rules of aviation:
1. You can land anything . . . once.
2. Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.
-
I just want to know how on earth you're supposed to land a Vandal. :o
Like the skids on glider wings:
(https://sfg-bensheim.com/images/articles/segelflugzeuge/Ventus2-S1.jpg)
but use wheels in a taildragger type configuration. The ventral fin could be a tail-wheel or tail-skid.
-
From what I've heard, it was designed to hit one target... the BACKFIRE, and at maximum range. Honestly, it was less important that it could actually do it vice if the Russians believed it could do it...
I've read that the Iranian F-14s actually did pretty well against the Iraqis back in the '80s. So much so that Iraqi pilots ran like crazy when USN F-14s painted them during Gulf War I.
Also explains why the Iranians (apparently) put a high priority on maintaining their F-14s and producing new AIM-54s.
Of course the Iraqi airforce wasn't exactly #1 in the world... ::)
-
Like the skids on glider wings:
(https://sfg-bensheim.com/images/articles/segelflugzeuge/Ventus2-S1.jpg)
but use wheels in a taildragger type configuration. The ventral fin could be a tail-wheel or tail-skid.
That's gotta be some long as hell main gear... I guess it's not that big an issue if your landings are either on prepared runways, or docking operations in space. But try to drop one of those on a bucking Luftenburg...ouch.
And for the next tidbit to give us all the screaming hellbie-jeebies: 31st-century flattops have arrestor wires capable of catching a 100-ton Stuka that's coming in at 100 mph, minimum.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled laws of physics...
-
That's gotta be some long as hell main gear... I guess it's not that big an issue if your landings are either on prepared runways, or docking operations in space. But try to drop one of those on a bucking Luftenburg...ouch.
And for the next tidbit to give us all the screaming hellbie-jeebies: 31st-century flattops have arrestor wires capable of catching a 100-ton Stuka that's coming in at 100 mph, minimum.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled laws of physics...
The gear don't have to be all that long. Look at the forward wings of the Vandal and their negative dihedral. You could put smaller wheels just underneath. I just included the glider as an illustration of wings having draggy bits attached.
-
I just want to know how on earth you're supposed to land a Vandal. :o
Vertically, of course... ^-^
-
I've read that the Iranian F-14s actually did pretty well against the Iraqis back in the '80s. So much so that Iraqi pilots ran like crazy when USN F-14s painted them during Gulf War I.
Also explains why the Iranians (apparently) put a high priority on maintaining their F-14s and producing new AIM-54s.
Of course the Iraqi airforce wasn't exactly #1 in the world... ::)
Part of it was that ridiculous radar system in the nose (which was the same one the Americans put in their own Tomcats). While most similar systems of the day allowed for tracking of a couple dozen targets at a time, and targeting of two at a time, the Tomcat could track dozens at once- and engage SIX. Handy if you're trying to bring down an entire flight of bombers inbound on a carrier in World War III- against Iraq's less-structured air force, it wasn't quite as overwhelming, but it was still concerning- a single Tomcat could still light up an entire strike package with missile lock warnings, and force them to break formation to evade a possible attack. Even if it didn't actually fire, that already messes with an opponent's attack plan- and it's doing it from ranges where Iraq's Soviet-built birds (usually inferior export versions) couldn't even detect what was hunting them. Oftentimes the F-14 wouldn't even attack- it would detect and target Iraqi planes, break up their formations, then vector in F-4 Phantoms and the like to hunt down the now-lone Iraqi jets in detail, like a sort of ad-hoc AWACS plane.
(http://nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/iran-f14-620.jpg)
And that's the key to Iran's Tomcats (though it's not clear how many of them remain airworthy)- its main weapon isn't the Phoenix, or Sidewinder, or anything else they've modded them to carry over the last several decades. It's the sensor suite- everything else is just a bonus. If any do remain flying, that's their primary job- detect and guide, not directly engage. At this point especially, as few remain flying and as hard as they are to maintain, combined with how valuable their airborne command/control role is, they likely would avoid direct combat if at all possible. Too much risk of losing an irreplaceable asset. (Which I admit tiptoes right along the fence of Rule 4- I had to edit this a bit to not break my own rules.)
-
Can other modern fighters pull that trick?
-
Can other modern fighters pull that trick?
More recent designs? Yeah, systems on cutting-edge designs like the F-22 and the newer Flanker iterations are pretty fantastic. Iran though doesn't have any of that fanciness, so they're stuck with the original AWACS-with-teeth. (Something to note though is that it was the AEGIS warship's sensor package, and NOT the F-18E, which allowed the Navy to retire Tomcat)
What Tomcat could do in the 1970s and 80s was absolutely unique, nothing else flying at that point could even try doing the job. There's probably no aspect of aviation though that has advanced more in the past 25 years though that electronics systems. What was a stunning capability against the Soviets is today much more commonplace- I'm not exactly sure what capabilities most modern fighters can boast (understandably much of it is classified), but it's probably closer to Tomcat's capabilities if anything than to the two-at-a-time days of the early Hornets. An interview a while back with Spanish Typhoon pilots raved about the increased capabilities over their Hornet fleet, after all- no details, but safe to say they're pretty big.
-
Can other modern fighters pull that trick?
that's a big part of the F-35 schtick, theoretically. and that's all I have to say about that ::)
An interview a while back with Spanish Typhoon pilots raved about the increased capabilities over their Hornet fleet, after all- no details, but safe to say they're pretty big.
Methinks the Typhoon jocks were trying to not-so-subtly hint that the Captor AESA upgrade is way overdue. Seems they have a wide array of defensive EW systems though.
-
that's a big part of the F-35 schtick, theoretically. and that's all I have to say about that ::)
Methinks the Typhoon jocks were trying to not-so-subtly hint that the Captor AESA upgrade is way overdue. Seems they have a wide array of defensive EW systems though.
the problem of course, is the same as with the Tomcat-any active radar that big (as in "Powerful"), is like turning on a flashlight on a flatland on a moonless night-as good as it lets YOU see, it reveals y our position and intention even better to people outside your engagement range-especially at altitude. Passive reception's nice, but only if the other fellow is obliging you with sending out his pulses.
some might deride the fact the Aegis let 'em replace the Tomcat, but here's the thing: the Aegis can carry a shit ton more defensive armament, has F-18's protecting it if it's spotting for them, and is working in a combined team that includes air, surface, and submarine elements, and by doing the guiding, that means your F-18 pilots aren't making themselves prominent for missiles and enemy pilots listening for that squeal. (which is of use in darkness or bad weather, but hey, we're talking planes that can FLY in darkness and bad weather, unlike Purgatory-on-the-potomac's golden 'be all to everyone' child fighter that still isn't mission capable 20 years after the contract was let.)
-
Definitely one of the selling points of the F-35 is the datalinks and its "knowledge fusion" capabilities. Which also means that you do not have to turn on your flashlight, you use the AWACS/AEW&C floodlight plus the passive sensors from a number of friendly units to give you the picture of the battlespace.
-
Definitely one of the selling points of the F-35 is the datalinks and its "knowledge fusion" capabilities. Which also means that you do not have to turn on your flashlight, you use the AWACS/AEW&C floodlight plus the passive sensors from a number of friendly units to give you the picture of the battlespace.
without pushing too far into politics, the problem you face, is that those capabilities? are possible, at less expense, on pretty much any airframe equal to or greater in internal volume, including airframes that are already cheaper, an that is WITH a higher probability of reliable function including the ability to fly at night, or in less-than-clear weather.
It's simply a matter of raw mechanics and how much internal volume the REST of your capabilities are eating up-and the F-35 uses up a LOT of that internal volume (and external surface area that could be used for things iike antennae) just accommodating the engine pack, enough for that lost volume to directly impact things like load, range, and airspeed.
essentially, assumiing the avionics work, you can get the same capabilities with potentially GREATER range, better reliability, or better over-all function in areas like uptime (the tiem you spend using those capabilities, as opposed to the time spent in repair or maintenance), all weather capacity, and night time function.
the avionic function isn't essentially dependent on the airframe, the fact is, these avionics are something that can be, and probably should be, installed into something that is functionally superior in at least ONE mission that would use them-and could be done so, for far less expense with shorter turnaround times for both engineering work, and maintenance and upkeep-because a simpler airframe is always going to be easier to keep in the air, than a more expensive one.
-
anyway...
how dated is the F-15 Strike Eagle? is it worth upgrading? if so, what with?
(https://s9.postimg.cc/jkhbi0c67/081112-_F-7823_A-306.jpg)
-
It's not YOUNG- they made their debut over Iraq in 1991, after all. It's also still one of the best fighter-bombers on the planet right now, so it's not in dire need of replacing quite yet. It's as good as it's really going to get though- most major upgrades would be enormous in cost and questionable in terms of really improving the platform itself. Weapons like JDAM and such allow it far greater capabilities now than they did in '91, when they'd be carrying Paveways, Rockeyes, etc.- that's likely what you'll see in terms of improvement as it enters its later years, greater options in terms of weaponry rather than the plane itself changing.
I think the long-term plan is to replace it with F-35, but that day is a long, long way off still.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fbf145cd03bfb4e18788b9ecbc3898e4-c)
-
Boeing has an off the shelf upgrade called the Silent Eagle that incorporates a bit of stealth from the front. They are a bit pricey though.
-
Can other modern fighters pull that trick?
Gotta imagine the workload of trying to manage all that in a single seater fighter.
And re Silent Eagle - worth noting the Chinese are betting big on "stealthy from the front". Given most combat kills occur before the victim's even aware that the enemy's out there, this may make for an interesting paradigm test. Whether it's "speed is life", or "speed is armour", remains to be seen.
Plus the fact that they're converting all of their old Mig-21 (and even some Mig-19) clones into drones. And that's a lot of drones.
-
Qatar's F-15QA may be the ultimate fighter on the planet not named Raptor.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/CA-Dec-6-Pic-2.jpg)
Good article: https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/03/22/qatari-eagles-set-to-be-most-advanced-to-date/ (https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/03/22/qatari-eagles-set-to-be-most-advanced-to-date/)
-
Qatar's F-15QA may be the ultimate fighter on the planet not named Raptor.
Currently I believe that title is held by the F-15i Ra'am, and I'll lay odds it will remain so - it has a few EW surprises stuffed in and the Israelis believe in lots and lots of EW.
-
I think we ought to start replacing some of our F-15's with some of these off the shelf improvement models. I think the fleet is around 24ish years of age average at this point.
-
I think we ought to start replacing some of our F-15's with some of these off the shelf improvement models. I think the fleet is around 24ish years of age average at this point.
Part of the problem with that, money aside, is the optics of improving on yesterrday's fighters when there's been so many problems with tomorrow's bird. Say what you will about the F-35 (and there's plenty to be said), but the Air Force has basically bet the farm that this is going to be the future- it's slated to eventually replace pretty much everything at this point. F-15C, F-15E, F-16, A-10, F-22, and if they could find a way to cram guns on the side they'd replace the AC-130 I'm sure. Consider that it isn't just about replacing the old stuff- the F-22 line was ended early basically in favor of F-35 as an option. This is THE combat aircraft of the next several decades, because it has to be.
Now, that's fine, but with all the teething problems it's had (which, admittedly, are more on the maritime versions, but the average layman might not see a difference), improving on the F-15 could look a whole lot like saying there's not faith in F-35 working out. From that standpoint, better to put money into the next-gen than into refurbishing the Eagle. (Further elaboration, of course, walks smack into Rule 4 for politics, but you can put two and two together- or at least use Google. ;) )
-
Part of the problem with that, money aside, is the optics of improving on yesterrday's fighters when there's been so many problems with tomorrow's bird. Say what you will about the F-35 (and there's plenty to be said), but the Air Force has basically bet the farm that this is going to be the future- it's slated to eventually replace pretty much everything at this point. F-15C, F-15E, F-16, A-10, F-22, and if they could find a way to cram guns on the side they'd replace the AC-130 I'm sure. Consider that it isn't just about replacing the old stuff- the F-22 line was ended early basically in favor of F-35 as an option. This is THE combat aircraft of the next several decades, because it has to be.
Now, that's fine, but with all the teething problems it's had (which, admittedly, are more on the maritime versions, but the average layman might not see a difference), improving on the F-15 could look a whole lot like saying there's not faith in F-35 working out. From that standpoint, better to put money into the next-gen than into refurbishing the Eagle. (Further elaboration, of course, walks smack into Rule 4 for politics, but you can put two and two together- or at least use Google. ;) )
Based on recent history(F-22), i wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 is never built in the numbers promised. While impressive in its own right once they iron out the bugs, i don't think it will live up to the one size fits all billing it's being sold as. Some of the modern F-15E and F-16 export models are pretty impressive and would make a great compliment to what the F-35 can accomplish.
Bypassing Rule 4 stuff, if the F-35 is THE combat aircraft for the next few decades, this could be a bad thing if it doesn't live up to expectations and i don't want to see the Air Force take one in the neck over this aircraft.
-
Idly, one famous story of the F-15E involves a nighttime attack that ended up in a unique victory - killing a flying Mi-24 with a direct hit from a laser-guided 500lb bomb. The Hind is a tough bird, but there isn't a chopper in the world that won't become confetti after a hit like that.
-
Based on recent history(F-22), i wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 is never built in the numbers promised.
A major difference in this respect being that the F-35 is allowed to be sold to other nations.
(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/opengraph_1_91x1/public/first_in-air_gun_fire.jpg)
-
A major difference in this respect being that the F-35 is allowed to be sold to other nations.
(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/opengraph_1_91x1/public/first_in-air_gun_fire.jpg)
it's been sold, it just has yet to be delivered as a working, capable aircraft.Based on recent history(F-22), i wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 is never built in the numbers promised. While impressive in its own right once they iron out the bugs, i don't think it will live up to the one size fits all billing it's being sold as. Some of the modern F-15E and F-16 export models are pretty impressive and would make a great compliment to what the F-35 can accomplish.
Bypassing Rule 4 stuff, if the F-35 is THE combat aircraft for the next few decades, this could be a bad thing if it doesn't live up to expectations and i don't want to see the Air Force take one in the neck over this aircraft.
sometimes you have to re-learn old lessons. The F-111 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/An_air-to-air_left_front_view_of_an_F-111_aircraft_during_a_refueling_mission_over_the_North_Sea_DF-ST-89-03609_%28altered%29.jpg/1200px-An_air-to-air_left_front_view_of_an_F-111_aircraft_during_a_refueling_mission_over_the_North_Sea_DF-ST-89-03609_%28altered%29.jpg)is a prime example of this exact thinking from an earlier time-period. "one size fits all" generally ends up becoming "one size fits none" really quickly.
it had a lot of the SAME hype surrounding it, "Cutting edge technology" and "Fits every mission and role"-only in practice, turns out...not so much the latter, though the former meant it spent decades of development time getting above a 25% operational readiness (that is, 1 airframe in 4 would be statistically likely to be combat ready at any given time). By the time it WAS ready, it was already OUT of production, with only one of the prospective export customers actually buying them (Australia)-and that was at a bargain rate for used airframes, and it had settled into a single role that didn't rely on high levels of combat readiness because that role was covered by other airframes and systems, making it (the EF-111) largely redundant in American service, while in Australian service, it essentially became their 'Strategic bomber' filling the same role (though on smaller scale) that B-52 or B-1 serve in the USAF. (Long range bombing of fixed targets).
if the thinking behind F-35 is 'The future' then the future's in bad shape, because it's predicated on the assumptions of the distant past.
-
which isn't to say we should even consider going back to the old SPAD....
(http://heritageflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/161102-Jansma-HFMweb-Skyraider-E50G0758.jpg)
though at least one Army general advocated for an aircraft with that exact mission profile and operational paradigm (as seen in Vietnam) during the initial 3 years we were in Afghanistan in the 2000's.
Boeing proposed an upgrade of this: (http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/history/images/ov-10_hero_med_01_1280x436.jpg)
as well for the counterinsurgency mission.
and there's always the PA-48, which was also once proposed for the COIN aircraft concept-back in the seventies..
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wmW9Zxudkdc/VQ3drsfyqGI/AAAAAAAAVJk/f3oRo5wduNQ/s1600/k-Piper%2BPA-48%2BEnforcer%2B12.JPG)
or for a more modern look, with an aircraft a little closer to current technologies:
(http://airheadsfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/IMG_1419b-Foto-Ralph-Blok-e1466502565419.jpg)
-
but you talk about 'Future'? This plane, developed by a private company with direct intent for straight-to-export, was neither cutting edge, nor 'advanced', yet served well into the 2000's from an initial release in the late 1950s in a variety of air-forces including the USAF and as an "Opfor' for the US Navy's 'Top Gun' School;
(http://www.the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info/Pictures/USAF/13332BinThuy%20b.jpg)
and had a sortie rate of 3/day when more 'Advanced' platforms could barely manage 1/3days.
-
I typed 'weird aircraft' into google images and this was in the first ~10 images
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rtiBi1zq4ns/hqdefault.jpg)
-
I've probably seen weirder, but we're all airplane buffs, it's hard to peg our weird-shit-o-meters.
-
Well, the Coanda effect is a thing ...
(https://cdn.yukepo.com/content-images/main-images/2017/07/21/main_image_10249.jpg)
(http://siamagazin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1321651-min.jpg)
And while Burt Rutan wasn't around in WW2 ...
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c117/joglo/weird-B17.jpg)
No-one told the British ...
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51XVNTRJ8DL._SX367_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
... it's hard to peg our weird-shit-o-meters.
Well, the Coanda effect is a thing ...
(https://cdn.yukepo.com/content-images/main-images/2017/07/21/main_image_10249.jpg)
Dammit Worktroll, I didn't say that as a challenge!
Now then...what in the actual cheese is that?!? Are the wings on the inside or something?
-
We don' need no stinkin' wings, man! The airflow coming in on that giant lip generates lift, and note the exhaust goes straight back & down. Think of it as a Dyson fan in reverse. IIRC the man is Herr Lippisch, of much later fame ...
There's a pair of ducted fans in there, which give theoretical efficiencies out the wazoo. Problem was in 1930s technology, the tolerances weren't there. And if you think I wasn't aware of them in terms of Leviathans ...
-
Based on recent history(F-22), i wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 is never built in the numbers promised. While impressive in its own right once they iron out the bugs, i don't think it will live up to the one size fits all billing it's being sold as. Some of the modern F-15E and F-16 export models are pretty impressive and would make a great compliment to what the F-35 can accomplish.
Bypassing Rule 4 stuff, if the F-35 is THE combat aircraft for the next few decades, this could be a bad thing if it doesn't live up to expectations and i don't want to see the Air Force take one in the neck over this aircraft.
The other aircraft that have tried to be THE combat aircraft have often done quite well, albeit after a period of adjustment which can last a long time - and don't forget that with the lack of overt struggle like either an active war or the Cold War things may well take longer - but the Tornado, the Typhoon and F-18 are all really quite decent aircraft these days. The Harrier did likewise (being British I have more of an interest in the F-35B than the other two models).
In terms of needing to rapidly upgrade in the event of an unexpected "hot war", the upgrades developed for things like the F-15 for export could probably be relatively rapidly rolled out while a lot of trainer aircraft can easily have a light bomber/COIN role - like the BAe Hawk.
I'll post with a load of photos in a separate post...
-
The other aircraft that have tried to be THE combat aircraft have often done quite well, albeit after a period of adjustment which can last a long time - and don't forget that with the lack of overt struggle like either an active war or the Cold War things may well take longer - but the Tornado, the Typhoon and F-18 are all really quite decent aircraft these days. The Harrier did likewise (being British I have more of an interest in the F-35B than the other two models).
In terms of needing to rapidly upgrade in the event of an unexpected "hot war", the upgrades developed for things like the F-15 for export could probably be relatively rapidly rolled out while a lot of trainer aircraft can easily have a light bomber/COIN role - like the BAe Hawk.
I'll post with a load of photos in a separate post...
I'll argue your central point here, doc.
the F-18 was designed as a light interceptor for the U.S. Navy, to give them an equivalent to the F-16 without forcing Admirals to pay for Air Force planes. (Seriously, that's what got it the job), and was based on YF-17, which was head-to-head against F-16 in development for the light interceptor role.
Harrier was intended as a ground-attack and short range plane, performance in the Falklands had more to do with how bad the Argentine military was, than how great the Hawker Harrier was. (thus, why RAF still ran F-4 phantoms until the Tornado, and Fleet Air Arm didn't give up theirs until they retired their remaining big flattop for a ski-jump 'baby carrier' in the eighties). and Typhoon? was developed as a compromise with dwindling budgets and reducing foreign deployments-an interceptor to carry bombs and have parts commonality with the rest of the EU.
NONE of those planes were developed with the express intent of "Being all planes to all users" as F-35 (and F-111 before it) were. Notably, th e best planes to DO that, have been planes NOT initially developed for it. F-15, F-16, F-4, Tornado, etc, etc to F-5 and Mig-21, have all made bones in "mulitirole' but only after demonstrating airframes and base architecture that could DO THAT.
from a base of specific, core engineering. planes sold to procurement agents as 'be all end-all' generally have service lives like F-111, that is, aside from the suckers who bought them on promises (or at steep discount) they're not particularly effective OR successful, because instead of having a base of something they do well that can be expanded, they have a menu of things they do poorly and a huge maintenance budget for doing so, often with more extended stays in the repair shop that would be reasonable for any single, semi-specialist, airframe with a similar role. (F-111 again, it wasn't until the eighties, twenty years after procurement, that it found a role it could do well, and it took that long to get the basic airframe in condition to where flying it wasn't hazardous to the crew in PEACETIME. 25% readiness figures. that's 1 out of 4 airframes are airworthy in FRONT LINE UNITS.)
England got suckered, so did we, the 'vision' of 'perfect multirole' is like perpetual motion machines, nuclear fusion powerplants, or Bussard Ramjets-it only looks good in theoretical studies, by people who don't have to make it actually function (in this case, in ANY role.)
-
weirdly, despite the A-10 being legendary for being designed to be able to fly with at least 1/2 a wing missing, I can't find any such photos and I hadn't quite realised that I don't think that sort of damage has ever been done to one although there are plenty of photos of damaged A-10s that made it home
on the other hand, I did find photos of damaged F-15 and F-14 aircraft - I don't know the origin/authenticity of the F-14 photo but have heard of the F-15 one for a while
-
NONE of those planes were developed with the express intent of "Being all planes to all users" as F-35 (and F-111 before it) were. Notably, th e best planes to DO that, have been planes NOT initially developed for it.
I'll still maintain that the best planes which ended up doing everything were specifically developed for naval use - the F-4 and the F-8/A-7. The combination of overpower and structural strength needed for carrier ops allowed them to be modified to do just about anything.
I do have to give a nod to the F-15/F15E family, and the Su-27 family - but both were big planes.
-
I'll argue your central point here, doc.
the F-18 was designed as a light interceptor for the U.S. Navy, to give them an equivalent to the F-16 without forcing Admirals to pay for Air Force planes. (Seriously, that's what got it the job), and was based on YF-17, which was head-to-head against F-16 in development for the light interceptor role.
Harrier was intended as a ground-attack and short range plane, performance in the Falklands had more to do with how bad the Argentine military was, than how great the Hawker Harrier was. (thus, why RAF still ran F-4 phantoms until the Tornado, and Fleet Air Arm didn't give up theirs until they retired their remaining big flattop for a ski-jump 'baby carrier' in the eighties). and Typhoon? was developed as a compromise with dwindling budgets and reducing foreign deployments-an interceptor to carry bombs and have parts commonality with the rest of the EU.
NONE of those planes were developed with the express intent of "Being all planes to all users" as F-35 (and F-111 before it) were. Notably, th e best planes to DO that, have been planes NOT initially developed for it. F-15, F-16, F-4, Tornado, etc, etc to F-5 and Mig-21, have all made bones in "mulitirole' but only after demonstrating airframes and base architecture that could DO THAT.
from a base of specific, core engineering. planes sold to procurement agents as 'be all end-all' generally have service lives like F-111, that is, aside from the suckers who bought them on promises (or at steep discount) they're not particularly effective OR successful, because instead of having a base of something they do well that can be expanded, they have a menu of things they do poorly and a huge maintenance budget for doing so, often with more extended stays in the repair shop that would be reasonable for any single, semi-specialist, airframe with a similar role. (F-111 again, it wasn't until the eighties, twenty years after procurement, that it found a role it could do well, and it took that long to get the basic airframe in condition to where flying it wasn't hazardous to the crew in PEACETIME. 25% readiness figures. that's 1 out of 4 airframes are airworthy in FRONT LINE UNITS.)
England got suckered, so did we, the 'vision' of 'perfect multirole' is like perpetual motion machines, nuclear fusion powerplants, or Bussard Ramjets-it only looks good in theoretical studies, by people who don't have to make it actually function (in this case, in ANY role.)
I'll still maintain that the best planes which ended up doing everything were specifically developed for naval use - the F-4 and the F-8/A-7. The combination of overpower and structural strength needed for carrier ops allowed them to be modified to do just about anything.
I do have to give a nod to the F-15/F15E family, and the Su-27 family - but both were big planes.
I wasn't going to cut-and-paste your responses because my response to it is not disagreeing with you - in fact, I think you are completely correct.
Speculating on from that, has there been a shift with more modern aircraft to design closer to the limits of capability of materials etc rather than building in a degree of safety margin to allow for imperfections in the design and materials?
I think this is part of the reason we see products from past eras working for decades while an iPhone lasts only a few years.
The other thing that is, I think, a large part of the problem with the F-35 is that, not unreasonably, there was a massive underestimation of the complexity of the computer programming to make the automatic adjustments to keep something so fundamentally bad at flying stay up. While such concepts have been around since at least the F-16, the F-35 adds more to the problem because for those sort of purposes there are three radically different aircraft and with the number of changes made from the prototypes they can't be used to base things off either.
Maybe BattleTech is right in it's vision of the future that actually there will be a bit of a slowdown in technology as we just become unable to get the software to work in anything like a timely fashion. Or maybe it'll be like the Terminator franchise once we get AIs to write the computer code and they then realise that their biggest problem are the meat-sacks.
-
*snip*
Speculating on from that, has there been a shift with more modern aircraft to design closer to the limits of capability of materials etc rather than building in a degree of safety margin to allow for imperfections in the design and materials?
*snip*
I've read here and elsewhere that the "safety margin" is the main reason the B-52 is still around...
-
Absolutely. In modern engineering practice, everything is designed to a service life and with modern computational modelling, us engineers are pretty good a designing things to meet their design service life.
"To the optimist the glass is half full. To the pessimist the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
-
I've heard it put as "anyone can build a bridge that stands up. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands up."
-
I've heard it put as "anyone can build a bridge that stands up. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands up."
LOL
we're dealing with 'advanced technology disease' at Boeing right now-they're toying with robots and automation. the places where the robots and automation are allowed to work as designed, are progressing nicely, but we've got some management meatheads who think the robots (designed for fixed installations) should be shuffled like checkers every couple of days...with predictable results. (they are, gradually, figuring out the limits on that stuff, but while they're wrapped in their illogical technoworship, it's amusing, and plenty of overtime for us 'meat sacks' who can think outside of a code string...)
but a lot of the problem from what I've observed, is guys with engineering degrees saying "Sure, you can make it do that!" without knowing what 'that' really is.
I've actually watched the young guys from the contractors get gray hair and age like presidents dealing with the shifting demands from the management. poor kids, make more than me, but they're putting the hours in on nightmare mode.
(https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/777x/assets/images/gallery/gallery-large-02.jpg)
we're still (amazingly) on schedule for test flights. Take that, 787!!!
-
The BRONCO II, based on the South African AHRLAC (Advanced High-Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft) is going to be offered for the U.S. Air Force’s light attack aircraft experimental competition.
(https://www.airrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2018/February/Ne_ronco_II_light_attack_aircraft_introduced_to_US_marke_001.jpg)
-
@Feenix - to some defence ministries, the glass is fitted for but not with additional water
The BRONCO II, based on the South African AHRLAC (Advanced High-Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft) is going to be offered for the U.S. Air Force’s light attack aircraft experimental competition.
To join Textron Scorpion and Embraer Super Tucano? I thought it had already been shortlisted to these two.
-
you mean the AT-6 Wolverine, not the Textron Scorpion.. the Scorpion was already cut.
i suspect the AT-6 will probably get it in the end.. not only are there political aspects involved regarding the locations of the companies, but the airforce already uses T-6 Texan II's for flight training, so an armed version could tap into that pre-existing logistics set up, making it even cheaper to operate.
that is, assuming the whole program isn't axed to feed it's budgetary carcass to the F-35 program..
-
The 777x is just a MAX/NEO version of the mighty 777. It does have the folding wings....lets see if some one buys them and uses them. The 777-200 model had designs for folding wings so it could fit into spots that the DC-10 and L1011 used in airports like LaGuardia.
-
i suspect the AT-6 will probably get it in the end.. not only are there political aspects involved regarding the locations of the companies, but the airforce already uses T-6 Texan II's for flight training, so an armed version could tap into that pre-existing logistics set up, making it even cheaper to operate.
I was of the same opinion, but the recent issues with hypoxia wth the trainer fleet that the powers that be can’t seem to keep from cropping back up have me wondering about that. Might not be enough to swing things, but when your instructors basically stage a walk-out over the number of hypoxia incidents, that might make you wonder about buying a bunch more of the same chassis for actual combat work.
-
but a lot of the problem from what I've observed, is guys with engineering degrees saying "Sure, you can make it do that!" without knowing what 'that' really is.
What the engineers are saying is true. We can pretty much do anything, the real questions are how much time, money and resources do you have to make it happen?
I've actually watched the young guys from the contractors get gray hair and age like presidents dealing with the shifting demands from the management. poor kids, make more than me, but they're putting the hours in on nightmare mode.
Yep, I do not miss being a consultant one bit.
we're still (amazingly) on schedule for test flights. Take that, 787!!!
That is an awesome picture and great news :thumbsup: I must admit I am a big fan of evolutionary design development over revolutionary design development.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHwGiWLkxaE
real or fake...i amleaning toward fake
-
I'd say painfully fake.
-
Painfully fake would be an improvement!
-
The engine intake design look like they are copied from a Global Hawk. The intake design would not be very "stealthy" with the rounded shape and a straight through to the turbine fanblades, even with the above wing location.
The rest of the aircraft takes "stealthy" design cues from the F-22 but appear to be missing some of the details that you would expect in the landing gear door covers.
The shading and reflections in the flying picture look CGI-ed.
So probably fake, possibly a design concept art for pitching at a trade conference/expo.
-
even if the body looks like it could work? reminds me of that model kit that was going about in early 90s the 3 or 5 snap kits peices
-
The engine intake design look like they are copied from a Global Hawk. The intake design would not be very "stealthy" with the rounded shape and a straight through to the turbine fanblades, even with the above wing location.
The rest of the aircraft takes "stealthy" design cues from the F-22 but appear to be missing some of the details that you would expect in the landing gear door covers.
The shading and reflections in the flying picture look CGI-ed.
So probably fake, possibly a design concept art for pitching at a trade conference/expo.
body is more like the YF-23.
and yes, it is just someone's 'fanart'
https://www.behance.net/gallery/58493045/A14-A-Wild-Wolf
-
At least a plausibly aerodynamic subsonic design. There's certainly much stranger things that flew.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e7/e0/e7/e7e0e7d6d59ec071ec109c33264f6cd3.jpg)
(https://i1.wp.com/militaryhistorynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/bv141_1.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/AntonovA40.jpg/300px-AntonovA40.jpg)
-
http://www.azfamily.com/story/38030707/military-aircraft-crashes-at-lake-havasu-city-airport-pilot-ok
Pictures in article. An F-16 crashed at Lake Havasu Municipal; the pilot made an emergency landing and the plane veered off the tarmac. He ejected safely but the aircraft was totaled. If the pilot had not ejected he would've been killed. The pictures show that the nose, through to the cockpit, was completely destroyed.
-
Yikes... looks pretty bad, but I have to wonder if the nose snapped off after the ejection weakened the frame.
-
Yikes... looks pretty bad, but I have to wonder if the nose snapped off after the ejection weakened the frame.
That's possible, but that plane took a serious beating. Note that it took damage literally over the entire airframe. Nothing looks right about that airplane anymore, from the nose (gone) to the exhaust pipe (trashed).
-
There was a mention of a flame out... if it was unpowered, it's amazing it managed to stay upright...
-
There was a mention of a flame out... if it was unpowered, it's amazing it managed to stay upright...
Too bad Deathshadow isn't around anymore. He used to fly these birds, and I'm sure could offer insights we don't have.
-
airplane no go vroom
soon no go zoom
soon go boom
-
Too bad Deathshadow isn't around anymore. He used to fly these birds, and I'm sure could offer insights we don't have.
Darn, I thought he poked his head in here every now and then...
-
I think he does. His profile says he was last online a couple weeks ago and I'm sure I saw him post a month or two ago.
-
That'll be in the local news here in a couple hours, I'll see if they have any details as to what happened. 'Departed the prepared surface' implies a touchdown on the runway and then it just never slowed down and went off into the dirt and hard clay. I'm guessing that based on the immediate area it ended up in, it doesn't look like it's in the middle of the airstrip as if it'd turned on landing and gone off the runway to the side; that looks like the open dirt outside.
Update: Not much besides some pictures from other angles. The aircraft itself is definitely not anywhere near the runway, looks like it cleared the fences and is out in the dirt. Right landing gear has clearly failed, it's tipped well over and that would account for the heavy damage to the engine if it was being dragged along. Same with the nose; I imagine they both failed once it hit the dirt. It's a rough bumpy rocky outer field, so I am gonna guess it suffered some kind of mechanical failure in the brakes, went off the end of the runway, and ripped her underside pretty bad.
I wouldn't count on the pilot flying anymore, ejection is extremely violent and does really bad things to the spine. Poor guy.
-
I wouldn't count on the pilot flying anymore, ejection is extremely violent and does really bad things to the spine. Poor guy.
Depends on the seat. The Aces II used on a lot of Western aircraft is actually pretty good.
Some foreign seats (especially older ones) not so much.
USAF Test Pilot School has a bunch of odd planes for students to figure out. One is a two seat MiG-15. The pilots have to sign a waiver to fly it as it's ejection seats will cause permanent back damage if used.
-
IIRC, it's not the first ejection that's the problem. It's that after you've ejected once, if you had to eject again you'd be at major risk of dangerous, possibly life-threatening injuries due to the stress.
-
An old family friend of mine was in an F-111 that went down over water in Australia. He lost about half an inch height permanently from the capsule ejection, and couldn't fly again.
The capsule ejection used, as I was told, the equivalent of quarter sticks of dynamite at each corner to boost the capsule FAST. He wasn't sitting just right, and a ruptured disc ensued. The loss of flight status burned him very badly, unfortunately.
-
As Mr Worktroll says, you permanently lose some of your height due to compression of your spine during a ejection.
Not so fun facts about ejections:
- if you are above certain height and eject from a Pilatus PC-9 (I am not sure if this is the case for the Beechcraft T-6A Texan II which is based on the PC-9), your knees will hit the underside of the dashboard and therefore you break both your legs on ejection.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/RAAF_Pilatus_PC-9A_CBR_Gilbert-4.jpg)
- the fighter pilots of RAAF No. 75 Squadron flying F/A-18 Hornets from RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory (think Crocodile Dundee country) would carry (without official sanction or approval) a Magnum 44 as their personal side-arm on a chest holster. The reasoning was that it would be needed to defend themselves against crocodiles in case they ejected (and it looked/sounded cool I am sure). That was until it was pointed out to the pilots that in the event of an ejection the added weight would probably result in cracked ribs and/or sternum.
(http://www.aviationwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120519_A21-38_Keith-Anderson.jpg)
-
There's no place to strap a sidearm that won't injure you more? That sounds like a recipe for disaster...
-
That's why your survival kit is part of the equipment that leaves the chair when you do. In an ideal world.
-
There's no place to strap a sidearm that won't injure you more? That sounds like a recipe for disaster...
Head/helmet
Apparently the weight of helmet mounted head's up displays is causing significant concern for ejection - especially for the F-35B
I can understand wanting something to fend off salties if I might eject in rural Australia and would want something to use between ejecting and receiving the appropriate MOAB-equipped fire support. As they aren't for use against enemy combatants, I would have thought that a hollow point 9mm would be adequate
-
Would a 9mm (even with hollow points) actually do more than make a croc that size mad?
-
Remember kids, there are two types of crocodiles in Australia: fresh-water, and salt-water crocs.
Fresh water crocs can be found in or near rivers, streams, or estuaries.
Salties can be found in or near salt water, fresh water, rivers, streams, estuaries, swimming pools, milk bars, hotels & pubs, and anywhere it rains more than once a month. Except they're not fond of the cold, and haven't bothered to seriously visit Victoria or Tasmania yet.
Yet.
-
That's why your survival kit is part of the equipment that leaves the chair when you do. In an ideal world.
Isn't there usually a survival kit box or something strapped to the ejection chair?
BTW, we know a certain heroic chappie went down fighting after ejecting with a 9mm Stechkin auto pistol, three 20-round clips and at least one grenade.
-
http://www.azfamily.com/story/38030707/military-aircraft-crashes-at-lake-havasu-city-airport-pilot-ok
Pictures in article. An F-16 crashed at Lake Havasu Municipal; the pilot made an emergency landing and the plane veered off the tarmac. He ejected safely but the aircraft was totaled. If the pilot had not ejected he would've been killed. The pictures show that the nose, through to the cockpit, was completely destroyed.
Per a WarZone article, two F-16s on training in the area, one gets an engine flameout, lands on the municipal runway (which normally has enough length), but due to the flameout can't stop in time. Pilot ejected safely before the jet went off the end of the runway
-
Remember kids, there are two types of crocodiles in Australia: fresh-water, and salt-water crocs.
Fresh water crocs can be found in or near rivers, streams, or estuaries.
Salties can be found in or near salt water, fresh water, rivers, streams, estuaries, swimming pools, milk bars, hotels & pubs, and anywhere it rains more than once a month. Except they're not fond of the cold, and haven't bothered to seriously visit Victoria or Tasmania yet.
Yet.
Freshwater crocodiles have a diet consisting mostly of fish.
Saltwater crocodiles have a diet consisting mostly of tourists.
-
I'd wager even a 44Mag would just make a Saltie mad. You are getting into elephant gun territory with those things, unless your Doc Holiday with a pistol, in a swamp with something chasing and trying to eat you.
-
I'd wager even a 44Mag would just make a Saltie mad. You are getting into elephant gun territory with those things, unless your Doc Holiday with a pistol, in a swamp with something chasing and trying to eat you.
I'll take a 12 gauge with solid shot please
-
I wouldn't bother carrying a gun to protect against crocs. They're ambush predators. If I see one, I can avoid it, but it's the ones I can't see that will kill me. Your first warning is going to be when hundreds of pounds of angry proto-dinosaur explodes out of the brush, and you are just not going to have time to draw and fire.
Dropbears, on the other hand, are best picked off from a distance.
-
Dropbears, on the other hand, are best picked off from a distance.
isn't a bit of vegimite on the ears supposed to ward them off?
-
Dropbears are ambush predators too . . . https://youtu.be/0qHQHYmsUJc (https://youtu.be/0qHQHYmsUJc)
I was always told that if you going near water in crocodile country, to take a dog.
Back to aircraft pics:
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/DD1C4665.jpg)
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/511f81a5e7b564298dfeae1615076084)
I think the RAAF should be buying more Super Hornets and Growlers, because this would have allowed us to delay buying F-35s until they are Block 30/40/50 release aircraft which should have most of the bugs sorted out.
-
Not even Super Hornets come "cheap" these days. Canada was quoted $500m per bird inclusive of missiles.
-
I'm fond of the F-15E and can't help wondering if they might be a good option for the RAF to replace the handful of still serviceable Tornados while waiting for the F-35Bs to come into service and to work with the Typhoons
-
I think the RAAF should be buying more Super Hornets and Growlers, because this would have allowed us to delay buying F-35s until they are Block 30/40/50 release aircraft which should have most of the bugs sorted out.
Still think we should have bought these
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5d5456fb18d0224f668f289cd4d7b8b4-c)
with an option on these
(http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/su34_fullback.jpg)
And gone parallel with the Indian approach. If we put in Rolls-Royce engines and US avionics, not only would we have a local aerospace industry to be proud of, we'd have some damned fine airframes well suited to our needs.
In some alternate universe where things make sense, anyway.
-
imagine if RL units went to war painted like tabletop models...
(https://s9.postimg.cc/oqiwtnhrj/tiger-typhoon-1619-700x466.jpg)
-
It might help avoid blue-on-blue when operating within visual range
Perhaps armoured vehicles should do the same?
-
Still think we should have bought these
with an option on these
And gone parallel with the Indian approach. If we put in Rolls-Royce engines and US avionics, not only would we have a local aerospace industry to be proud of, we'd have some damned fine airframes well suited to our needs.
In some alternate universe where things make sense, anyway.
The Indians aren't exactly jumping for joy these days about buying Russian stuff, though. They just recently pulled out of the PAK-FA program.
http://www.janes.com/article/79457/india-withdraws-from-fgfa-project-leaving-russia-to-go-it-alone (http://www.janes.com/article/79457/india-withdraws-from-fgfa-project-leaving-russia-to-go-it-alone)
-
(https://images.redframe.com/capphotography/800_2330/9344.jpg)
-
(http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/6/8/0/1619086.jpg?v=v40)
(it's only a model ...)
-
The Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito was such a beautiful plane.
(http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1449419277/605fb6e8/10718917.jpg)
Shame we bombed the only factory in Germany that made decent wood glue.
-
(http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/6/8/0/1619086.jpg?v=v40)
(it's only a model ...)
The front of that plane could be very useful for roasting weenies and marshmallows.
-
Imitation has always been the most sincere form of flattery ...
-
One of the lesser-knowns of WW2...
(https://s17.postimg.cc/dwnazbkrj/whirlwind.jpg)
-
What is that, a two headed Spitfire?
-
It looks like it was supposed to be a jet, maybe?
-
Whirlwind. If she had gotten the merlin engines she deserved, she would had been as famous as the P-38.
-
Designed as a high-altitude interceptor, got crappy engines, ended up as a ground attack plane IIRC.
-
Whirlwind. If she had gotten the merlin engines she deserved, she would had been as famous as the P-38.
Yup. The modern RAF fighter triumvirate would then have been the Spitfire, Hurricane and Whirlwind - neat.
The Westland Whirlwind was the first RAF aircraft to mount a cannon, with four Hispano Suiza 20mms in the nose making it one of the most heavily armed aircraft for its day, up until the RAF Beaufighter came along. It was extremely fast and could match the Me-109, so it was an attack fighter that could defend itself well.
Though the Westland Whirlwind ended up mainly used to attack trains and ships, not tanks, I like to think of it as one of the ancestors of the A-10 Thunderbolt.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/D40A1LT.jpg)
I don't think the Whirlwind could ever have had Merlins, it was just too small. The best that could have been hoped for was continued development of the Peregrine, which was also never going to happen.
-
The Westland Whirlwind was the first RAF aircraft to mount a cannon, with four Hispano Suiza 20mms in the nose making it one of the most heavily armed aircraft for its day, up until the RAF Beaufighter came along.
Something you learn very quickly in War Thunder - don't joust Beaufighters.
-
Move along, nothing to see here...
(https://s14.postimg.cc/8redb9vtd/mirage44352.jpg)
nice shot of both aircraft types. And you get an idea of what aircraft camo can look like.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/D40A1LT.jpg)
I don't think the Whirlwind could ever have had Merlins, it was just too small. The best that could have been hoped for was continued development of the Peregrine, which was also never going to happen.
I wonder what it would be like refitted with turboprops?
-
I wonder what it would be like refitted with turboprops?
fast
-
fast
And noisy.
-
And noisy.
And a range of 100 miles...
-
(https://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/Beechcraft-AT-6-experimental-05-08-2018.png)
-
Sexy...
-
Speaking of...I have no pictures sadly, but I was on my way to lunch earlier today, and glanced up just in time to see a B-29 fly overhead. :o
-
Speaking of...I have no pictures sadly, but I was on my way to lunch earlier today, and glanced up just in time to see a B-29 fly overhead. :o
Well it was either FiFi or Doc...
-
FiFi I bet. She's on tour right now.
https://www.airpowersquadron.org/b29-schedule
-
The amazing thing about these planes that there is no way to duplicate is how loud they are. I know when at an airshow and you might see a couple bombers in formation do a flyby (I've seen 2 B17s and a B24 in formation) and you think "dang that's loud." Now just imagine multiplying that by 1000 and seeing streams of them crossing The Channel.
-
Back when I was growing up in El Cajon, I was under the final-approach path for Gillespie Airfield. When the CAF came out for the air show, the B-17 and B-24 would do a paired speed-run at about a hundred feet (or lower) and full throttle, to announce their arrival.
Boy howdy did you know they were there.
-
Finding out just how actually cramped a 17 or 24 is also very humbling. Or finding out just how close you are to falling out of one when the bomb bays are open. Being 6ft tall, is very tricky in one.
-
Finding out just how actually cramped a 17 or 24 is also very humbling. Or finding out just how close you are to falling out of one when the bomb bays are open. Being 6ft tall, is very tricky in one.
Being 6'5" it's far worse - and yet the He-111 they had (RIP crew in 2003) was surprisingly roomy. The -17 especially feels more like two planes connected with that one spar in the middle of the bomb bay, and that's it...and it is a tight, tight fit.
-
My grandfathers both served in Europe, and following my parents' wedding they actually became good friends. My dad's dad flew B-24s in the war (mostly over Italy and Eastern Europe), while mom's dad parachuted into France before D-Day and later was at Bastogne.
One evening, over a football game at my parents' house when mom's folks were visiting, the two of them (along with myself, Dad, and my uncle) had a few beers and told old stories. (Well, I had root beer, I was like nine). And the exchange between them was pretty great- paternal Granddad (who was about 5'9") explaining that "if you were six feet tall you probably were going to have a bad time... probably fall out of the ****** airplane if you weren't careful."
Maternal Granddad- he of 6'3"- took a pull from his Heineken and casually replied with a wink "I know. I just wanted to go fly over France for a while and ended up in a hedge."
-
:thumbsup:
I always have wondered about the sanity of the people who volunteer to jump out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft, . . . I have always had the greatest respect for them as well.
Old urban myth about ANZAC Day and 3RAR (3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment) which was our parachute battalion. A couple of young paras are have post march drinks and one says that he had done 20 jumps, the other says he has done 30 jumps, they ask the old para veteran who they are sitting with how many jumps he has done, he says "3". They laugh and say "only three!" The Regimental Sergeant Major eases himself into the conversation "excuse me sir, but which three jumps were they?" The old para vet responds "my qualification jump, D-day and Market Garden." The Regimental Sergeant Major responds "Boys, I think you owe this gentleman a beer."
-
At least two! :thumbsup:
-
All the beers. ALL of them. Men like that earned the right to never spend money in bars years ago.
-
Mind you, there's the flipside.
The callsign for BOAC flights - now for British Air - is "skybird". So BA12 would be "Skybird 12".
Now the ground controllers at German airports tend to be very particular, and not very forgiving. The conversation, reputedly in 1956, goes something like this:
Tower: "Speedbird 12, you are assigned gate 17 Lima. Proceed down runway 45 Lima to exit 3 Charlie, then <series of directions, rapidly spoken>."
BA12: "Tower, this is Speedbird 12, could you go through the directions a little slower, please?"
Tower: "Speedbird 12, have you not been to Templehof before?"
BA12: "Tower, this is Speedbird 12, yes, actually, about twelve years ago, but I didn't stop ..."
-
The last version I heard of that put it in Frankfurt. :)
-
in keeping with the direction of the conversation...
(https://img.wikinut.com/img/1pobvbfewz-amhcm/jpeg/0/British-bombers.jpeg)
-
This is the version that I heard:
Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one’s gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206.
Speedbird 206: “Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway.”
Ground: “Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven.” The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: “Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?”
Speedbird 206: “Stand by, Ground, I’m looking up our gate location now.”
Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): “Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?”
Speedbird 206 (coolly): “Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,… and I didn’t land.”
On a more serious but uplifting note:
https://jalopnik.com/5971023/why-a-german-pilot-escorted-an-american-bomber-to-safety-during-world-war-ii (https://jalopnik.com/5971023/why-a-german-pilot-escorted-an-american-bomber-to-safety-during-world-war-ii)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNmypZ9lv94&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNmypZ9lv94&feature=youtu.be)
-
Also notable is "Cactus" from the America West, US Airways merger. Last used in 2015 sadly.
-
Tonight is the 75th anniversary of Operation Chastise, better known as the Dambuster Raid.
Wing Commander John Butcher, current CO of 617 Squadron, and Squadron Leader George "Johnny" Johnson, last British survivor of the raid, in front of the Lancaster bomber from the RAF memorial flight.
-
That was some dam good flying in that raid.
-
Bouncing bomb test drop at Reculver
Bomb fitted to Guy Gibson's Lancaster
617 Sqdn in flight with bombs
George "Johnny" Johnson's Lancaster
-
That was some dam good flying in that raid.
Pun intended, one assumes :D
Bearing in mind that only one live weapon had been dropped before the raid and that half the crews who flew the raid had never even dropped a dummy bomb as well...
When James Holland was writing a book about the raid, he took a trip over the Eder Dam in a Beech 18 to get a feel of what the approach was like. The pilot commented that it was a difficult approach even at 500' because there was so little space to make the turns.
When Joe McCarthy (the only US Dambuster) visited the Sorpe with his son (a USAF pilot) in the 1960s, they walked out along the dam & Joe Sr stopped part way and told his son that if he'd seen the approach on from the ground first he wouldn't have believed you cold have done it in a fighter, let alone a 30-ton bomber
-
I hope the old bean can attend 617's first F-35 delivery ceremony.
-
It's a wonder those planes got off the ground. One would think the weight of the crews' giant clanking balls would have caused problems.
(Also, just looking at that plane makes my ear echo with the sound of quad Merlins. It's a good, good thing.)
-
It's a wonder those planes got off the ground. One would think the weight of the crews' giant clanking bouncing balls would have caused problems.
(Also, just looking at that plane makes my ear echo with the sound of quad Merlins. It's a good, good thing.)
Fixed for you :thumbsup: (Yes pun intended ^-^ )
Yes, the sound of the quad Merlins triggers a primordial response that just has no equal, especially compared to modern jet engines.
-
There is a video of a DC6 dropping a bouncing bomb breaking up a damn, pretty neat and the closest visual what it would look like.
-
Apaches and Hinds serving together! :o
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/115/80115/p1533451_main.jpg)
Indonesia has formally received into service the first Boeing AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters that arrived in-country in late 2017.
The Indonesian Army will fly the Apache alongside the Russian-built Mil Mi-35 assault helicopters it received from 2003.
-
That'd make one hell of an air-assault battalion.
-
@Fat Guy - oh yea welcome to this part of the world. Next door you have the RMAF operating Flankers and Hornets together.
(https://s31.postimg.cc/cx2m2l4q3/f0c1d99a3f4e70e7dc02080dfe200ca2.jpg)
-
Rounded and squared off bugs
I believe the callsign for Apaches in Afghanistan was "ugly"
-
@Fat Guy - oh yea welcome to this part of the world. Next door you have the RMAF operating Flankers and Hornets together.
You do not even have to go next door. TNI-AU (Indonesian National Military - Air Force) operate F-16A/B/C/Ds and Su-27SK/27SKM/30MK/30MK2.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Indonesian_F-16C_Fighting_Falcon_during_a_functional_check.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Tni-au_su-30_1.jpg)
-
The Indonesian Air Force have always had a bit of a mixed fleet:
CAC Sabre (Australian built F-86)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/TNIAU_F86.png)
Mig-15
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EcwGnNomwIU/TzGhyWdScaI/AAAAAAAAHXI/_Tgqm2Q4idg/s1600/F-15-UTI.jpg)
-
@Fat Guy - oh yea welcome to this part of the world. Next door you have the RMAF operating Flankers and Hornets together.
(https://s31.postimg.cc/cx2m2l4q3/f0c1d99a3f4e70e7dc02080dfe200ca2.jpg)
That Flanker is a big fighter.
-
F-16 plus SU-27 sounds look a good mix. A light and fairly cheap dogfighter plus a heavy missile truck. Do they still use the original electronics and engines on both or have they modified them with similar system?
-
Mig-15
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EcwGnNomwIU/TzGhyWdScaI/AAAAAAAAHXI/_Tgqm2Q4idg/s1600/F-15-UTI.jpg)
Anyone else's first reaction to that picture by trying to imagine the noise in the cockpit if that engine ingests a bird?
-
I don't know if the censortron catches panicked Polish cursing or not. Let's not test it and just assume it's nothing you'd repeat in front of Polish children. ;D
-
Ngentot . . . Censortron appears not to catch swearing in Bahasa Indonesia ;)
A Polish Mig-15 in comparison:
(http://www.flyfighterjet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/MiG-15-Fagot-Poland-Lim-21.jpg)
F-16 plus SU-27 sounds look a good mix. A light and fairly cheap dogfighter plus a heavy missile truck. Do they still use the original electronics and engines on both or have they modified them with similar system?
I am not in the loop but I have no reason to believe that the Indonesian have modified either their F-16s or their Su-27/-30s avionics or engines.
-
I looked it up and apparently there was an incident in the 50s where a Mig 15 ate a test pilot. The techs understandably refused to try salvaging the engine, so in the end the wings, tail, and guns were removed and the pilot was buried in the rest of the plane.
-
I hope they didn't make the family pay for a bigger plot...
-
You kiss your ma with that mouth, Feenix? :D
Meanwhile the Royal Thai Air Force has added JAS-39C Gripens to join their inventory of F-16s, finally replacing their F-5Es.
(https://s31.postimg.cc/ekfpnev17/SAAB_Gripen_Fighter_Royal_Thai_Air_Force.jpg)
Well that's how it goes in third-world countries. You buy what you can afford from whoever you're friendly with today.
-
My parents are very traditional chinese, so not very touchy feely . . . anyway I was just para-phrasing the TNI-AU Mig-15 pilot after the engine ingests a bird :P
Asia-Pacific is certainly an interesting place for military hardware at the moment. Avoiding Rule 4 territory but there are a lot of nations investing significant sums of money in upgrading their military capabilities
The Republic of China Air Force (aka St Ives Taiwan) and the Republic of Korea Air Force (aka South Korea) are upgrading their F-16 to the new F-16V Viper standard
(https://i0.wp.com/www.defenceaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Introducing-F-16V-The-Latest-4th-Generation-Fighter-Plane-from-Lockheed-Martin.jpg?resize=620%2C330&ssl=1)
I just wished they had done a better job of visually blending the conformal fuel tanks into the curves of the F-16 (yes I know function is more important than form but true beauty is when we have both function and form).
-
Those are certainly some 1980s power padded shoulders.
-
Aerodnynamics? What aerodynamics?
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/f9e345b703772bf3fd9d535bbb82ea8f/tumblr_p8wewvN0IT1qgggino1_1280.jpg)
A pair of Shorts Singapore II flying boats.
-
Looks like the F-35 has a new nickname as well as had its first combat sorties.
(http://flightlineinsignia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/WPS-6-1101-250x250.jpg)
-
Wow. Big news if thats so, cause it wasn't officially announced at all.
-
All over the Israeli news. I'll not link because of Rule 4, but yeah, they were used in the recent strikes against Syria and performed quite well apparently. Certainly undetected and stamped mission-successful. So it seems the stealth and delivery systems are, at least, functional.
-
"Undetected" in that part of the world doesn't necessarily mean the technology worked...
-
All over the Israeli news. I'll not link because of Rule 4, but yeah, they were used in the recent strikes against Syria and performed quite well apparently. Certainly undetected and stamped mission-successful. So it seems the stealth and delivery systems are, at least, functional.
The IDF do not screw around in these matters, no. Their seal of approval I trust.
From the BDA of that one Pantsir hit they published though it looks like their ordnance needs more explodey power.
-
Wow, those are big jugs (get your mind out of the gutter . . . external fuel tanks ^-^ )
They look like they have got a bit more of an angular edge to them than the standard external fuel tanks but they still could not help the RCS.
-
"Undetected" in that part of the world doesn't necessarily mean the technology worked...
how could they tell it was effective in that part of the world, did they check the rubble and the dust for a color change? are the craters a different shape from the ones already there?
as for 'undetected', when the enemy's using 50's era HiMAD (but without the radars because those were already blown up in the fighting earlier this year) and shoulder-launched heat-seekrs that require eyes-on to engage (not really possible at 30K+ feet altitude) that's kind of a no-prize. You can do it in a Hawker Hunter under those conditions. Irregulars and the remnant of a conscript army working with handmedowns and scraps isn't a test of your 'stealth' features, it's fish in a barrel for anything with wings and working avionics.
Put it up against an airforce that isn't flying fifty year old planes armed with junkyard special munitions, who have a working early-warning net, and functional ADA network and aren't a mixture of untrained volunteers, political appointees, etc. etc. first, see how it does and maybe then, you've got something to announce when it works.
but the Middle East? Syria's a basket case. Unless those strikes were at Russian positions with established defenses and secure perimeters, it's not really a test of anything except map-reading for the pilot.
-
Guys, airplane discussions are fine, politics are not. Which you're all VERY well aware of. Don't get this thing locked. C:-)
-
Its something. Well we know they can drop bombs now.
Anyway... maple syrup and poutine memes go!
(https://s7.postimg.cc/alnt9apwb/Fw_LVZs_L.jpg)
-
150...is that for the country, or the air arm?
(Don't look at me like that. Somebody might choose to count from their first observer balloons.)
-
150...is that for the country, or the air arm?
(Don't look at me like that. Somebody might choose to count from their first observer balloons.)
The country. Think its too early even for airships. The first air arm was the Aviation Militaire, formed in 1910.
-
150...is that for the country, or the air arm?
(Don't look at me like that. Somebody might choose to count from their first observer balloons.)
I THINK it's for the Canadian Armed Services in-general, but I'm not 100% sure.
-
It was for the signature of the Confederation of Canada by the representatives of the various british colonies July 1st, 1867.
-
This is for the photo I wish I would have gotten today.
A C17 did a flyby over Lake Minnetonka at about 500 ft. I was stuck in my car and stuck in traffic so I didn't get the look I wanted but from what I could reckon it was about 500 off the ground and about 500 feet from shore and doing about 200 kts and about a 45 degree (or more) bank at one point. Just awesome...of course all the snooty people in Wayzata had absolutely no appreciation for that display...
-
Its something. Well we know they can drop bombs now.
Anyway... maple syrup and poutine memes go!
(https://s7.postimg.cc/alnt9apwb/Fw_LVZs_L.jpg)
it's so...pretty.
-
Nice photo of that CF-18
Seen this one at a Airshow 2 years ago.
-
Australian Hawk simulator. Kinda nice huh?
(https://s15.postimg.cc/4v6q5qt17/HMS.jpg)
-
Maybe one day!
-
Maybe one day!
that MIGHT actually be a wee bit overpowered. (I know, scary thought, right?)
-
June 30th will mark the 50th anniversary of the first flight of the C-5 Galaxy.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/06/Screen-Shot-2018-06-04-at-15.39.12.png)
-
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/News%20Stories%20P/Bite%20Me%21/BiteMe77.jpg)
-
I mentioned this plane in the Naval thread, the German torpedo bomber, Fieseler Fi-167:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1977-110-06%2C_Flugzeug_Fieseler_Fi_167.jpg)
-
An Elephant Walk of a different species
-
Oooh, Zeds on parade.
On that note, why yes, those are AIM-9s. Shame they haven't had a chance to shoot down a jet yet, that'd be the best story ever for the rotary wing club.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ee/df/ed/eedfed5d5d91ac6d69fff017d830f070--attack-helicopter-super-cobra-helicopter.jpg)
-
Oooh, Zeds on parade.
Of note, that's not even the whole squadron of 27 planes. Found another photo:
-
Oooh, Zeds on parade.
On that note, why yes, those are AIM-9s. Shame they haven't had a chance to shoot down a jet yet, that'd be the best story ever for the rotary wing club.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ee/df/ed/eedfed5d5d91ac6d69fff017d830f070--attack-helicopter-super-cobra-helicopter.jpg)
If you're in a MiG and you take a Sidewinder from a freaking helicopter, you don't eject. I don't care how high up you are, how damaged the aircraft is, whatever- you keep your hands in your lap, don't touch the yellow handles, and ride it in. Because there's no getting past this level of shame. xp
-
If you're in a MiG and you take a Sidewinder from a freaking helicopter, you don't eject. I don't care how high up you are, how damaged the aircraft is, whatever- you keep your hands in your lap, don't touch the yellow handles, and ride it in. Because there's no getting past this level of shame. xp
considering you'd probably have a better chance of surviving a crash than surviving an ejection from most MiG's...
-
Probably better than actual seppuku anyway...
But I think its more for self-defence against other choppers isn't it? Doesnt the Hind carry AAMs too?
-
Probably better than actual seppuku anyway...
But I think its more for self-defence against other choppers isn't it? Doesnt the Hind carry AAMs too?
I feel like I've seen one carrying AA-8s, but I can't find an image now that I (briefly) search. Maybe they were AT-6s and I'm just dumb.
But I'll never skip an opportunity to post a Hind.
(http://s14544.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-3.jpg)
-
It's really hard to find a good pic, though there are a couple of closeups - almost as hard as finding pics of Apaches packing Stingers.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/kmz37lxnl/34696d1321433187-st18.jpg)
(https://s22.postimg.cc/a1f7viz0x/11188489_903259536403596_6817868591049624054_n1.jpg)
BTW it looks like the Stinger is tube soft-launched even when mounted on the AH-64. I did not know that...
(https://s22.postimg.cc/v9swd0qdd/e688e40e66344e29badc81dabf38c657.jpg)
-
Of note, that's not even the whole squadron of 27 planes. Found another photo:
I was wondering how large the unit is/would be
There is probably more variation in what makes up a "squadron" in terms of numbers of aircraft than any equivalent unit name I can think of
I am ignoring the differences in unit referred to as squadron or troop between Commonwealth and US forces and wing or group between the same two - those are legitimate differences
-
BTW it looks like the Stinger is tube soft-launched even when mounted on the AH-64. I did not know that...
yep it is.
(https://userdisk.webry.biglobe.ne.jp/006/636/24/N000/000/000/118096710460516314504.jpg)
makes for good cross compatibility, since the shoulder fired, helicopter mounted, and ground vehicle mounted versions all use the exact same ammo system.
-
Bingo. Shipping container, self-contained storage safe from the elements, able to be used by any of several launch systems. It's actually a remarkably good idea when you think about it- if one needed, one could pull them from an aircraft (for example) and easily use them in infantry launchers, mechanized units like Avenger, etc. or vice versa. And while it's star may not be as bright as it was 30 years ago when they made life miserable over Afghanistan, it's still as good of a small-caliber SAM system as any out there.
-
Bingo. Shipping container, self-contained storage safe from the elements, able to be used by any of several launch systems. It's actually a remarkably good idea when you think about it- if one needed, one could pull them from an aircraft (for example) and easily use them in infantry launchers, mechanized units like Avenger, etc. or vice versa. And while it's star may not be as bright as it was 30 years ago when they made life miserable over Afghanistan, it's still as good of a small-caliber SAM system as any out there.
Hmmm...didn't we already see that in a scene in Firebirds?
*Ducks and covers from the return artillery barrage*
;D
Ruger
-
Yeah, we just had that conversation a couple months ago.
-
A bit late but a couple of days ago Tom Cruise posted on twitter/facebook with the hashtag #Day1:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DegKeduXUAAWBLt.jpg)
-
Nope.
-
i feel the need to make somebody bleed.
-
Come on EA. Mr Cruise isn't going to save your derivative driving.... Oh wait.
-
Hmmm...didn't we already see that in a scene in Firebirds?
*Ducks and covers from the return artillery barrage*
;D
Ruger
"Strawberry gum?" ^-^
-
"It's delicious." :D
Australia Army Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter doing trials on HMAS Canberra
(http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cms-image-000010358.jpg)
-
"It's delicious." :D
Australia Army Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter doing trials on HMAS Canberra
(http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cms-image-000010358.jpg)
So are they keeping their Cobras and going for a mix with this in the scouting role vice say; a Kiowa and the Cobra as the attack helicopter or replacing the Cobra?
-
they might be doing like the JGSDF.. who use the Cobra for Attack, the OH-6D Loach for observation, and their home grown Kawasaki OH-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_OH-1)'s for armed recon.
(well, Japan does have some Apache's.. but not many)
-
I might be mistaken, but I think they're dumping the whole Tiger fiasco
A bit late but a couple of days ago Tom Cruise posted on twitter/facebook with the hashtag #Day1:
Only if we get some realistic fighter combat.
-
I feel like I've seen one carrying AA-8s, but I can't find an image now that I (briefly) search. Maybe they were AT-6s and I'm just dumb.
But I'll never skip an opportunity to post a Hind.
(http://s14544.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Czech-out-this-Mi-24-Hind-in-hybrid-alien-tiger-camo-that-showed-up-at-NATOs-Tiger-Meet-3.jpg)
Never ever a bad time for Hind pics
-
(https://s22.postimg.cc/kmz37lxnl/34696d1321433187-st18.jpg)
(https://s22.postimg.cc/a1f7viz0x/11188489_903259536403596_6817868591049624054_n1.jpg)
Thanks for that. I have never seen a pic of an AAM armed Hind before
-
I might be mistaken, but I think they're dumping the whole Tiger fiasco.
Unknown at this stage. Both the Tiger and the Taipan have their issues, here is an article with a summary of some of the issues the two helicopters have faced http://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/tiger-and-taipan-a-tale-of-two-helicopters (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/tiger-and-taipan-a-tale-of-two-helicopters).
Taipan MRH-90
(https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/images/Aircraft/MRH90-Taipan.jpg)
I believe Australian Dept of Defence has invested too much time and resources into both to just dump them. However, I can see them not getting extensions to life of type and being quickly replaced at first opportunity with Longbow Apaches and Blackhawks.
-
It seems to me to be more common for the British military to be more likely to buy something other than American than the Australians (Blackhawks, MBTs) yet for attack helicopters Apaches were obtained and the rest of the helicopter fleet is at least fairly sensibly balanced to get decent numbers of aircraft in the fleet of each type in UK forces but not for Australia
I'd also suggest people look up on YouTube a short video about a silly British "Top Gun 2" about drone pilots but I'm not sure if it's safe for work...
Sorry, no photos as on iPad
-
As an aside, that's what the real Top Gun 2 is going to be about (and they confirmed casting Val Kilmer to repeat his role) so who knows how accurate that British film might be.
Also, Cheyenne! Shame about that one, being a victim of interservice fighting and the stupidest test I've ever heard of.
-
We had a grand plan, the aerospace engineers wanted to cut down number of different types of helicopters that we were operating across the services to get efficiencies of scale and improve interoperability across the services (Army and Navy). So instead of operating Sea Kings (Navy) and Blackhawks (Army), you get the Taipan MRH-90 to replace both share the airframes across Army and Navy (to the stage that the "Navy" MRH-90s were painted in camo with a "Navy" stencilled on the front instead of "Army"). So think F-35s but with egg-beaters :'(
(https://asianmilitaryreview.com/wp-content/uploads/Australia-NH90.jpg)
(https://www.helis.com/h3/mrh90_australian_army.jpg)
Tiger ARH was a slightly different issue. Army wanted the Longbow Apache but it was going to be significantly more expensive than the Tiger or Rooivalk. Additionally, there were some sensitivities with the idea of buying an "attack" helicopter designed to kill MBTs in the Fulda Gap. So we decided to get an "armed reconnaissance helicopter" instead, so decision was made to go with Tiger instead of Apache (nevermind that it too was designed to kill MBTs in the Fulda Gap . . .) may also had something to do with the fact that Eurocopter committed to assemblying the Tigers and Taipans in Brisbane . . . Anyway I have tight-roped Rule 4 enough.
-
Local-industry sensitivities are part-and-parcel of defence procurement in general, and not without a certain amount of reason. As a matter of fact, that's a big draw as to why the UK picked the Apache - those are Westland Apaches, DoctorMonkey - as well as the fact that the pache really is the premier attack helicopter worldwide.
As an aside, that's what the real Top Gun 2 is going to be about
So, "Stealth" man-over-machine stuff then.
-
Only if we get some realistic fighter combat.
ICEMAN (Kilmer) and MAVERICK (Cruise) are loitering in their F-35s, flying in a lazy oval roughly centered on their aircraft carrier. SUDDENLY, the radio crackles to life!
CONTROL: "Flight One, this is Control, over."
MAVERICK: "Control, this is Flight One, over."
CONTROL: "Flight One, we have two bogies in the no-fly zone, range five-zero klicks, do you confirm, over."
MAVERICK: "Control, Flight One confirms, two bogies on scope, bearing oh-three-five, range five-zero klicks, over."
CONTROL: "Flight One, confirm target assignment, over."
SMASH CUT to Maverick's radar display. TWO RED DIAMONDS are moving menacingly across the upper-right hand quadrant. THEN...ONE IS OUTLINED WITH BRACKETS! SMASH CUT to Iceman's radar display! The OTHER red diamond is OUTLINED WITH BRACKETS!
MAVERICK: "Control, Flight One-One confirms, over."
ICEMAN: "Control, Flight One-Two confirms, over."
CONTROL: "Flight One, stand by, over."
A THRILLING FIVE MINUTE WAIT, DURING WHICH NOTHING MUCH HAPPENS! Since the bogies are in the F-35s' forward arc, neither pilot performs any maneuvers.
CONTROL: "Flight One, clear to engage designated targets, over."
MAVERICK: "Roger, Control. On my mark, Flight One-Two. Three...two...one...mark. Fox one, over."
ICEMAN: "Mark. Fox one, over."
CONTROL: "Flight One, stand by."
ANOTHER THRILLING WAIT! Far off in the distance, the missiles find and destroy their targets...but it's so far away nobody can see it. NOTE FROM FX DIRECTOR: Thanks! Explosions are hard!
CONTROL: "Flight One, targets destroyed. Resume patrol, out."
MAVERICK: "Control, Flight One, Wilco. Out."
ICEMAN: "You can be my wingman any day."
CONTROL: "Flight One-Two, clear the airwaves, out."
-
Very nice ColBosch, I prefer the drone version
Two gone-to-seed, overweight and somewhat greasy "pilots" sit at adjacent desks with joysticks, monitors etc
-
;D ;D ;D bravo
There's some scope for WVR manoeuvreing though, such as if visual ID of some target is needed... and throwing in different assets, capabilities and mission types will make things more interesting. The average Joe Public doesn't know about things like BVRAAMs, CEC, that sort of thing...
-
;D ;D ;D bravo
There's some scope for WVR manoeuvreing though, such as if visual ID of some target is needed... and throwing in different assets, capabilities and mission types will make things more interesting. The average Joe Public doesn't know about things like BVRAAMs, CEC, that sort of thing...
Neither do I, nor do I particularly care to learn. But I prefer to not pay for my recruitment materials, so I'll be sitting this pile of steaming dogshit out.
-
(http://www.danielbechennec.com/pages_air/jet/images/jet-m26-PANAVIA-TORNADO.jpg)
I know JUST the oversized rudder to steer us back on topic to aircraft rather than politics or movies! ^-^
-
Anybody ever photoshopped one of those to be carrying Great Whites under each hardpoint? At this point, the pun seems obvious.
-
I sometimes wonder if those tanks are hard-mounted, one almost never see any Tonkas without em
-
2018 CF-18 Demo plane (commemorating 60 years of NORAD)
(https://i.imgur.com/tdEtVfM.jpg)
-
That half maple leaf/half star reminds me of a Cameron star...
-
This is for the photo I wish I would have gotten today.
A C17 did a flyby over Lake Minnetonka at about 500 ft. I was stuck in my car and stuck in traffic so I didn't get the look I wanted but from what I could reckon it was about 500 off the ground and about 500 feet from shore and doing about 200 kts and about a 45 degree (or more) bank at one point. Just awesome...of course all the snooty people in Wayzata had absolutely no appreciation for that display...
A bit late on this one but it reminds me of when i was still living in Fargo and there were some old world war ii birds at the summer air show (2000? 2003?). I was going over a bridge toward campus (which is basically right next to the airport) and almost slammed into the back of the car in front of me because I was mesmerized by the B-24 being escorted by a Zero and a P-51 coming overhead at about 500 feet.
Then there was the time I was counselor for a summer camp that was housed in one of the highrise dorms and the blue angels buzzed the building and almost blew out my eardrums (and my shorts). I'm good on being close to operating combat aircraft now, thanks.
-
Also, Cheyenne! Shame about that one, being a victim of interservice fighting and the stupidest test I've ever heard of.
The Cheyenne is one of those that I wish had been chosen...much like the YF-23...
Ruger
-
But instead you got the Apache, and the Marine Harrier. So not entirely a bad thing, from a project that hadn't equalled the Sgt York affair, but was heading that way.
-
People romanticise the Cheyanne to death. They also tend to forget that it was running up against weight problems and technical problems, and was allready obsolete before it finished development.
-
Most of the technical stuff had been solved, the test that took the life of a pilot was trying to induce a rhythmic rotor hop and had to disable all the safety systems used to prevent said rotor hop. So of course it's a: going to happen and b: it already had a means to prevent it. Yeah, it was a big chopper, but it was also fast and sneaky as hell. The observer teams in various tests didn't see or hear it until it was practically on top of them, much closer than other helicopters at the time. And the ordnance load was pretty solid for the era as well, six wing stations for FFAR pods or TOW 3-packs.
-
The Cheyanne was also a 1 engine airplane. I just dont think a 1 engine design is a good idea for a helicopter. Also the Cheyanne was huge.
-
The Comanche, on the other hand...
-
The Comanche, on the other hand...
$7 Billion spent, 2 aircraft built, but they were beautiful to look at.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Rah-66_w_apache_02.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/40/71/99407139b87cf749cc98b205766b0899.jpg)
skids are for kidz?
-
The Cheyanne was also a 1 engine airplane. I just dont think a 1 engine design is a good idea for a helicopter. Also the Cheyanne was huge.
Entirely agreed, but all the early UH-1s and AH-1s were single engine for thirteen and five years before the twin engine versions showed up. That was right around the time the Cheyenne was being developed, so give it a couple years and the -56 probably would have had a similar variant.
-
All I'm going to say here is
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bomber/tsr2/tsr2-5.jpg)
(https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ece-images/29b/news/article35690833.ece/BINARY/w620/FILEPIC2-280211.JPG)
-
I love the Arrow. It was one of the best designed planes for the wrong era or mission. It was a great 3rd gen fighter and maybe the first. I don't know if it would hold its own in a dogfight. But a 3gen fighter wasn't really designed for a dogfighter.
-
The Arrow is a fascinating plane that I only discovered recently. If anyone has more information on it beyond Wikipedia I'd love to know more.
The TSR2 has long been a favourite, ever since I saw on at RAF Cosford as a child and learned that my father had been involved in it's engine development as a junior engineer at RR
-
I don't know if it would hold its own in a dogfight.
I don't think too many MiGs would be stooging past the DEW line.
(http://www.seanmmaloney.com/old/images/avro/avro1-3.jpg)
-
Speaking of the DEW line:
(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/56/2a/9a/alert.jpg)
(https://canadianbaseoperators.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/alert-1-460x306.jpg)
(https://irp-dnd.com/wp-content/uploads/cf-bases.jpg)
Welcome to Canadian Forces Station Alert, a Canadian Armed Forces signals intelligence intercept facility located in Alert, Nunavut, Canada, on the northeastern tip of Ellesmere Island. It is the northernmost permanently inhabited place in the world. As my friends in the Canadian Air Force explained, everyone gets a posting to Alert but if you get a second posting to Alert then it is time to resign (ie the top brass are sending you a not too subtle message that they want you out).
-
Apparently the Wheatcroft Collection has a JU-87 Stuka under restoration:
"A rare discovery recently, a pilot seat for the collections Stuka which is being built up in Germany. We're on the trail of some other fairly major parts that will now complete the engine bay, although we are still searching for many smaller parts"
https://en-gb.facebook.com/The-Wheatcroft-Collection-2348619585363508/
-
Apparently the Wheatcroft Collection has a JU-87 Stuka under restoration:
"A rare discovery recently, a pilot seat for the collections Stuka which is being built up in Germany. We're on the trail of some other fairly major parts that will now complete the engine bay, although we are still searching for many smaller parts"
https://en-gb.facebook.com/The-Wheatcroft-Collection-2348619585363508/
Awesome!
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9f/aa/59/9faa59e5ce02c8d7ce9998b0a89b0ac4.jpg)
Tutor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CT-114_Tutor), Arrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow), Silver Dart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEA_Silver_Dart)
-
It looks like it has seen better days but the cabin interior looks pretty good, would certainly be worth restoring.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-25/elvis-presley-private-lockheed-jet-up-for-auction/9905626 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-25/elvis-presley-private-lockheed-jet-up-for-auction/9905626)
-
I was in Green Park right under the fly past for the RAF's 100th anniversary celebrations
Very impressive
-
Wow what a size difference between the Arrow and the Tudor.
-
I was in Green Park right under the fly past for the RAF's 100th anniversary celebrations
Very impressive
I was watching from the roof of our office. Definitely impressive. Especially the close formation Typhoons.
-
this is kinda cool too
https://twitter.com/rafbrizenorton/status/1016734060704608257?s=12
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/148b3fed9241f6d082b788b30b7a093a/tumblr_pbf52yqpwy1tgd4rdo1_1280.jpg)
The XB-70 was absurd but in a beautiful way.
-
I've stood next to the XB 70 at Wright Patterson. Absolutely huge! Awesome development. Sadly SAMs made it obsolete by its first flight and the highly toxic fuel didn't help. For me its even more awesome than the sci fi concepts of the time.
-
Absolutely one of my favorite birds. I've also seen her in Dayton. Sadly, the pictures of me beside the Valk are lost to time.
-
this is kinda cool too
https://twitter.com/rafbrizenorton/status/1016734060704608257?s=12
Very cool, that! :thumbsup:
-
the RAF centenary flypast was amazing to watch - the different sounds, the great formations...
-
Wow going to need to watch that better later. So very awesome form what Ive seen.
-
The XP-67 'Moonbat' was not a successful plane but lord it looked amazing.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/McDonnell_XP-67_front_view_061024-F-1234P-032.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/vVT84An.jpg)
-
It probably would have been successful had it been equipped with the Merlin engines it was designed around. Unfortunately there weren't enough Merlins to go around, and the Mustang had priority. The less powerful Allisons it wound up with killed it's performance.
God it was beautiful though...
-
I'd love to get a model of that in a wind tunnel. The fuselage is perfect for aerodynamics, but I'm curious if there's any stress points in that 'alcove' between the fuselage and nacelles at the leading edge. That looks like a surefire place for fatigue, particularly during combat maneuvering.
-
Found this 2006 CGI short with some Spitfire-on-Messerschmidt action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvfOTYf3RH0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvfOTYf3RH0)
Bits were licensed for use in the music video for GUNSHIP's "Fly For Your Life"
-
The XP-67 'Moonbat' was not a successful plane but lord it looked amazing.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/McDonnell_XP-67_front_view_061024-F-1234P-032.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/vVT84An.jpg)
surprised they didn't slap some Jet Engines onto that later on..
-
I am thinking the same thing. Her shape would have been ideal for the early jet era
-
surprised they didn't slap some Jet Engines onto that later on..
With it's luck it would have wound up with Westinghouse engines, which pretty much ruined every design they were ever mounted on.
-
The Moonbat with some Jet Engines would look really good for a Aerospace asset for Battletech.
-
One Bat redesign did have early turbojets in the back of the engine pods. But there were too many other problems, and the Shooting Star was working just fine.
-
If you discount the aerofoil fuselage, the general shape and layout is similar to the Gloster Meteor, so it probably would have worked with two jet engines, just a shame that by then it was probably seen as a boondoggle.
(https://www.worldwarbirdnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Gloster-Meteor-T.7-WA591-Photo-Steve-Walsh-CC-BY-ND-2.0.jpg)
-
Speaking of the Meteor, were there ever any confirmed instances of one encountering and engaging a Messerschmitt Me 262?
-
I believe the Meteor was never involved in any air-to-air engagement during WWII beyond interception of V-1 Flying Bombs. It was mainly used for ground attack and armed reconnaissance missions.
-
Yeah the Meteor Squadrons always had pretty severe limitations on where they could fly. The British really didn't want the
Soviets Germans to get a hold of one.
(https://images.redframe.com/capphotography/1000_21482/AC3Q1909.jpg)
-
That certainly makes sense.
-
It's just as well. The 262 had its share of flaws and problems, but the early Meteor's issues with weapon failures would have made for a really rough matchup with the German plane.
In addition, postwar tests by the RAF from a pilot who flew both types pointed out that the Schwalbe could turn much sharper- a huge consideration in dogfighting. Combine those two issues, and Meteors likely would have had a rough time in what would have been history's first jet dogfights.
-
the 262 was slightly faster as well.. though IIRC the Jumo 04 engines on the 262 were really sensitive, and too many throttle changes in a short period could exacerbate the already short lifespan of the engine and cause engine failures..
it would have been an interesting matchup, IMO.
of course, both outclassed the P-80 Shooting Star (and greatly outclassed the P-59 Airacomet)
-
If my memory serves me correctly, the Me 262 also had a 50 kt speed advantage over the early build Meteors.
Although, I do get the impression that the Meteor's engines were a bit more reliable that the those of the Me 262 which I understand had a tendency to spit out compressor blades due to poor quality metals and manufacturing that the Germans had left late in the war.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3866/32389842764_f8651d90ca_b.jpg)
-
The 262's guns were also not really built for dogfighting. They fired a massive shell, but at a fairly slow ROF and at a rather low muzzle velocity compared to the quad 20mm cannons on the Meteor that had a far higher ROF making them better dogfighting weapons.
-
In addition, postwar tests by the RAF from a pilot who flew both types pointed out that the Schwalbe could turn much sharper- a huge consideration in dogfighting.
Would you happen to remember the source for this?
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/9/5/1738590.jpg)
-
Probably one of the books about/written by Eric Brown who was a pretty darn amazing bloke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)
-
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5ae8a40a19ee865b008b475c-1200.jpg)
Farewell, SU-57 - we never really knew you. (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7?r=US&IR=T)
Russian Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov ... said, per The Diplomat: “The Su-57 is considered to be one of the best aircrafts produced in the world. Consequently, it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft.
It's hard to make 5th Gen planes on a 1st world budget. On a budget roughly equivalent to that of NY State ...
-
The Russian military does seem to have an issue with run away budgets
(probably caused by graft/corruption lets be honest here)
And joint projects with India are not always successful, see the huge cost overruns with the conversion of the Vikramaditya into a carrier from a Kiev class ship. 2.1 billion dollars, 3 times the original agreed upon price and a massive delay in construction, no wonder the Indians went "NOPE!" and pulled out, they'd seen these kinds of money pots before.
-
Not so much, uh, diverted budgets as actual lack of budget to start with, coupled with as much bluster as possible on the adage that if you shout loud enough the bear will run away.
And I don't believe for a second the supposed costs of the SU-57.
-
When India pulled out of the Su-57 project I figured it wasn't going to last.
-
Meanwhile, the UK unveils its next superiority fighter - the Tempest, which is projected to enter iOC in 2035 and eventually replace the Eurofighter Typhoon while "complementing " the F-35
The WW2 Tempest also replaced the WW2 Typhoon, shot down many V-1 bombs and was a notable adversary of the Me-262.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/uy79ozgo1/Capture.jpg)
-
It looks like a modernised V-bomber.
I love it!
-
Not so much, uh, diverted budgets as actual lack of budget to start with, coupled with as much bluster as possible on the adage that if you shout loud enough the bear will run away.
And I don't believe for a second the supposed costs of the SU-57.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_pVrIshxA
does actually work :p
-
Apparently it's got onboard autonomous operation hardware as well. "The new jet will be able to be operated by a pilot in the aircraft, but will also have an unmanned capability." They're advertising the thing as a hybrid drone/manned aircraft, which...I suppose works for your literal ultimate doorkicker, and yet uses the same airframe to come back later and provide support and supremacy.
Sadly, right now it's only a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but good luck competing with the F-35. They're looking for international partnerships and funding, so...
-
Keep it aviation-related guys, a few comments here are walking right up to the politics line and spitting on it.
-
Russia has an economy roughly the size of South Korea's so trying to imagine them keeping up their degree of defence spending is kinda unrealistic.
On a different note, I'm curious what China plans to use on its CATOBAR carrier that should be completing in the next couple years. I don't think the Su-33/J-15 were designed for catapult launches, and they've been reportedly dissatisfied with its performance off carriers anyway with at least a couple accidents (some fatal).
The FC-31/J-31 is a private venture and only two prototypes have been seen so far. In order to be ready for the new CV, they should be a fair way into the development process already.
I'm also a little surprised they haven't created a dedicated carrier trainer like the T-45 Goshawk or older T-2 Buckeye or TA-4J Skyhawks
T-45 Goshawk:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/T-45A_Goshawk_04.jpg/1280px-T-45A_Goshawk_04.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/US_Navy_071107-N-6603A-001_A_T-45C_Goshawk_breaks_away_from_a_formation_to_reveal_an_underlying_message_during_filming_for_a_television_spot_in_the_skies_above_Naval_Air_Station_Meridian.jpg/1280px-thumbnail.jpg)
T-2 Buckeye:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Buckeye_T-2A.jpg/1280px-Buckeye_T-2A.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/T-2C_Buckeye_Pax_River.jpg/1280px-T-2C_Buckeye_Pax_River.jpg)
TA-4J Skyhawk:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/TA-4J_Skyhawk_of_VT-7_at_NAF_Washington_1993.JPEG/1280px-TA-4J_Skyhawk_of_VT-7_at_NAF_Washington_1993.JPEG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/TA-4J_VC-8_2003.jpg/1280px-TA-4J_VC-8_2003.jpg)
-
this is wonderful - a recording made by a Bomber Command pilot about his experience of a raid made just after he returned from it
https://player.fm/series/dan-snows-history-hit-106527/the-unheard-tapes-of-bomber-command-with-steve-stevens
-
It looks like a modernised V-bomber.
I love it!
Looks like the strike variant of the F-22, the proposed FB-22.
-
Would you happen to remember the source for this?
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/9/5/1738590.jpg)
That looks to be one of the Me 262 Project reproductions.
-
In addition, postwar tests by the RAF from a pilot who flew both types pointed out that the Schwalbe could turn much sharper- a huge consideration in dogfighting. Combine those two issues, and Meteors likely would have had a rough time in what would have been history's first jet dogfights.
Would you happen to remember the source for this?
Found this in RAF Meteor Jet Fighters in World War II, An Operational Log (Hugh Harkins):
Although they never met in combat, it is inevitable that the Meteor III is compared to its wartime rival, the Me. 262. The Meteor III had a higher profile drag compared with that of the Me. 262. This was principally caused by the Meteors higher wing drag, in turn caused by the Meteors lower wing loading, which corresponded to lower maximum speeds compared to the Me. 262. After a series of trials with the Me. 262 at RAE Farnborough in 1945, it was determined that with engines of equal thrust the Meteor III would be 20 mph slower than the Me. 262. On the plus side for the Meteor III, the lower wing loading gave it better take off performance, including a shorter take off run, and better manoeuvrability compared with the Me. 262.
(http://www.rafmuseumphotos.com/p/134/gloster-meteor-f3-639829.jpg)
-
Here is a sharks mouth on a airliner. Embraer EMB-190 Called the Profit Hunter!!!
-
Looks like a promotional item for Shark Week.
-
Looks like the New Japanese Plane may look like the Black Widow II
-
Here is a sharks mouth on a airliner. Embraer EMB-190 Called the Profit Hunter!!!
Looks like a promotional item for Shark Week.
Promo for the new sequel to "Snakes on a Plane", "Sharks on a Plane"? :runaway:
-
More like shark is the plane, keeping up with more than 70 years of tradition.
-
Or promo for the next Sharknado movie. :D ;D xp
-
Or promo for the next Sharknado movie. :D ;D xp
that or The Meg
-
That movie looks bad.
-
That movie looks bad.
the first book was mediocre. the sequels had some interesting concepts, but were pretty meh.
the movie looks to be mashing up elements of the sequels into the general story of the first book. so not like they had a lot of good material to work with.
-
There's not really much you can do with the concept that won't look bad. And since it's a summer blockbuster, they're not likely to bother.
-
This is coming to the US later this summer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZxgEi8gEsE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZxgEi8gEsE)
-
Cool.
-
The sound of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine give me goosebumps every time :thumbsup:
-
Some neat concept work on 'what the X-32 might have morphed into' from https://www.hangar-b.com/
I rather like the less delta-winged look and the forward angled intake. It also seems slimmer in the body, not quite got the hump of the X-32.
-
CAF just lost a bird, though all aboard are okay. C-47B Skytrain rolled and dipped her left wing immediately after takeoff and put it in the dirt, it seems to have had some kind of issues with control as it went up.
https://twitter.com/KTXS_News/status/1020731755521720320
Note the roll right, then left, then the hard spin. Fortunately everyone did get off the plane successfully, but the Bluebonnet Belle is completely destroyed.
-
Not a real plane but still one hell of a looker the MiG-31 Firefox is one of my favorite movie planes
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fictional-flying-machines/images/5/52/MiG_31_NASA_Archive.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20131119145530)
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Firefox-Aviationist.png)
-
Firefox was a pretty awesome looking plane. I did like the rear camera and the missiles that fire backwards.
Now which one was a better plane. The Mig 31 from Firefox or the F/A-37 from Stealth??
I would recommend people to watch both movies but both movies are so bad to watch.
-
Stealth was an enjoyably dumb movie, pure popcorn nonsense and the F/A-37 was a very handsome aircraft :)
-
As far as fictional aircraft go, I've always been a fan of the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/6/6d/X-02_Wyvern_Infinity_flyby.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150122140227)
-
Stealth was an enjoyably dumb movie, pure popcorn nonsense and the F/A-37 was a very handsome aircraft :)
Shortly after it came out, I kept getting numerous emails of that plane, along the lines of "check out the US Navy's latest stealth fighter!" It was hilarious.
-
Shortly after it came out, I kept getting numerous emails of that plane, along the lines of "check out the US Navy's latest stealth fighter!" It was hilarious.
I STILL DO. xp
-
Lucky you, I miss those. They were funny.
-
To be fair, the special effects in that movie were excellent. I wonder if they built full-size models.
-
To be fair, the special effects in that movie were excellent. I wonder if they built full-size models.
They did, which is where the images in those emails came from. They built a full size filming mockup and had actual deck crew move it around an actual carrier deck.
-
That's really cool, actually.
-
If only they'd spent as much time on the dialogue and story. The basic plot's not bad, but holy crap, whoever okayed that shooting script really committed a crime against audiences.
-
(https://s8295.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/jet1-thumbnail-e1427745032646.jpg)
Specifically, this image. What's interesting is that the design is loosely based on something Northrop was dreaming of a while back, the Switchblade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Switchblade).
-
Looking at the Switchblade... What an engineering and maintenance nightmare it would have been! Forward-swept swing-wings, really?!?
-
The Pulse Jet Engine from the Movie Stealth is a true, but I don't know how it works. Don't think its going to replace the Tubrofan
-
Pulse jet was stupidly simple - it's basically a combustion chamber with a set of louvers at one end that close during the detonation phase, giving the pressure wave something to push against in one direction and nothing in the other. Then the louvers flatten, letting the air flow through.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Pulse_Jet_Engine.PNG/300px-Pulse_Jet_Engine.PNG)
-
It's what gave the V1 the name "buzz bomb". They're noisy as hell.
-
i suspect the movie meant Pulse Detonation Engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engine) which are a kind of advanced high performance jet system..
-
Here is a video of a replica running on a test stand.
Pulse Test (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiau6fuzLfcAhUr7YMKHQ9VAu8QjB16BAgBEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWCsKs2NhdWg&psig=AOvVaw0uwjSBMWJpS7fUiT6XkFZG&ust=1532516979579847)
-
This was the engine from the plane so called. It was a Pulse Detonation Engine. Little different then the Pulse engine from the V-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engine
even tried it in flight
-
Anyone else going to be at the Oshkosh airshow (Ok...EAA Airventure)? I'm heading there tomorrow for a couple of days and hope to get a ton of pics.
-
This was the engine from the plane so called. It was a Pulse Detonation Engine. Little different then the Pulse engine from the V-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engine
even tried it in flight
this plane was in a dfiscussion i am in on another forum (a webcomic fandom.. a C-82 packet had just appeared ,and i posted a pic from a museum to illustrate the aircraft in question, and the PDE plane above was hanging in the shot.)
where i described the PDE as a sort of "Ramjet Orion Buzzbomb" after someone had made the V-1 comparison..
-
Who loves rocket spam?
(https://i.imgur.com/LDLzTzb.jpg)
I wonder if rockets work with twin or triple ejector racks. Regardless, I'd love to see an A-10 or Super Hornet (or any other platform with lots and lots of hardpoints - Flankers?) with RLs on every single hardpoint, ripple-firing the suckers off
-
(Laughs in Su-25)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dhjvh9y8r/Sukhoi_Su-25_2008_G7.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/6r3e7tvnf/11de4546795a2f16d2bbabbccf4cbf42.gif)
Though actually my taste runs more to RAF Tornado and Brimstone - precision over raw power...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0c/96/a2/0c96a2c7ee4f77698d70d2851480c230.jpg)
-
I wonder if rockets work with twin or triple ejector racks.
They do.
F-16 at Davis Monthan AFB.
(http://archive.defense.gov/imgHandler.ashx?h=350&w=0&img=/dodcmsshare/photoessay/2014-03/hires_140303-Z-YH452-111a.jpg)
Only seems to work with the smaller 4 and 6/7 tube systems though.
-
(Laughs in Su-25)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dhjvh9y8r/Sukhoi_Su-25_2008_G7.jpg)
So it is!
(https://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2017/7/28/939670.jpg)
I see the Russians do the same thing with firing rockets from expensive cutting-edge fighters for PR shoots
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLfLw4GWgAEN7s_.jpg)
And sometimes bigger is more
(https://admin.nezavisen.mk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Suhoj-25.jpg)
-
Damn whippersnappers... let's kick it old-school.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1b/a3/d5/1ba3d5974baf559ff5af6b69eb242ad4--fu-corsair-vintage-airplanes.jpg)
-
Younger generations . . .
No appreciation for doing it for doing it the right way . . . by hand, relying too much on their fancy toys. In our day, we had pride in our work and it took real skill to get on target, none of this point and shoot stuff . . .
(https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/styles/fullsize/public/cockpit-bombadier.jpg?itok=DDK5zO9L)
(https://media.iwm.org.uk/ciim5/331/948/large_000000.jpg)
-
WW1 Le Prieur rockets which were little more than fireworks...
(http://api.ning.com/files/LN*jCdh*NeJ8SptjCz*aqa*0QNdNnwwsgujSjKcGUqPSSk4M7NPp2p-VU6L3YU0jqJwLDavZmNjCym3r1vXBayQSJT-pYmGv/0le_prieur_c.jpg)
-
I suppose as area-marking smoke rockets those would work. Pick out grid squares for the artillery to convert to lunar terrain, more than any actual attack capability.
-
could also see those maybe being usable against zepplins.
-
(http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva25bomb/va25specbomb-004b.jpg)
(https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/A-1H_Skyraider_of_VA-25_with_toilet_bomb.jpg)
Yes that's a Skyraider with a toilet on its bomb rack :p
The story of the toilet drop was told by Captain Clint Johnson, the pilot of another VA-25 A-1 Skyraider. The toilet was a damaged one that was going to be thrown overboard anyway. But some plane captains decided to rescue it, dress it up to look like a bomb, and drop it in commemoration of the 6 million pounds of ordnance that had been dropped by the U.S. Air Force. The Air Control team said it made a whistling sound as it came down, and that it had almost struck the plane as it came off. A film was made of the drop using a video camera mounted on the wing.
Just as the toilet was being shot off, Johnson said,’ we got a 1MC message from the bridge, “What the hell was on 572’s right wing?” There were a lot of jokes with air intelligence about germ warfare. I wish that we had saved the movie film.’
-
Skyraider with chemical weapons attachment.
-
Was there a kitchen sink on the other wing? ^-^
-
It has an "E" badge. How can a toilet get an "E" badge? Er... I don't need the answer ;D ;D ;D
-
Bombing the crap out of the enemy
-
I suppose as area-marking smoke rockets those would work. Pick out grid squares for the artillery to convert to lunar terrain, more than any actual attack capability.
Looked 'em up on Wikipedia. Incendiary weapons before practical incendiary bullets were developed, they were only intended for use against balloons and airships.
-
Should you happen to have a 1/32 Skyraider, well, why not? (https://hlj.com/product/BRGBRL32012)
Looked 'em up on Wikipedia. Incendiary weapons before practical incendiary bullets were developed, they were only intended for use against balloons and airships.
Huh. You know, you don't really think of LTAs as combatants, but that was indeed a thing back in the day.
-
Lets try something a bit more modern:
(https://www.airforce.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3736/f/styles/img-1200x800/public/news/hero-img/harpoon.jpg)
A RAAF P-8A Poseidon aircraft has successfully fired its first Harpoon missile during Exercise RIMPAC 18. The ATM-84J Harpoon missile was launched from the aircraft at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, off the coast of Hawaii and successfully struck its target, the former USS Racine.
-
I wonder... during SINKEXes, are there ships or aircraft assigned to shoot down the missile if something goes wrong? I'm sure the nearest ships would be very far away from the target area, but even so do they have their anti-missile systems at the ready just in case?
-
I wonder... during SINKEXes, are there ships or aircraft assigned to shoot down the missile if something goes wrong? I'm sure the nearest ships would be very far away from the target area, but even so do they have their anti-missile systems at the ready just in case?
I wonder if there's a safety system where they can detonate any missiles that go wonkey remotely?
-
There are for things like sub-launched ICBM tests, such as the infamous Trident Fidget Spinner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z-3fjg4dYY). I'd imagine a test missile is fitted with similar things, especially considering the long range of bigger ones. An AIM-9, not so much an issue since 30 miles of empty airspace isn't so hard to accomplish; 1500 miles for an ALCM (to pick a missile) is a bit trickier. And of course there's all kinds of publicly announced warning areas for tests called Missile Engagement Zones, where it is a very bad idea to be if you reflect radar or emit heat.
-
It has an "E" badge. How can a toilet get an "E" badge? Er... I don't need the answer ;D ;D ;D
There really are some things better imagined than known.
Me, I'm just upset that we don't have rules for this in TacOps. I need to know how much damage a toilet does to a Battlemech upon impact... for a friend, of course.
-
There really are some things better imagined than known.
Me, I'm just upset that we don't have rules for this in TacOps. I need to know how much damage a toilet does to a Battlemech upon impact... for a friend, of course.
Depends on who used it first...
-
Toilet used by star of elementals on pasulj diet would be classed as WMD even if it was treatedwith inferno weapons.
-
I'm pretty sure that the Combine has nuked planets for less.
-
There are for things like sub-launched ICBM tests, such as the infamous Trident Fidget Spinner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z-3fjg4dYY). I'd imagine a test missile is fitted with similar things, especially considering the long range of bigger ones.
When the Range Control Officer on the testing support ship ordered the destruct (a feature available on test missiles only), telemetry said the guidance system was starting to right the missile.
And Lockheed and the Navy knew exactly what went wrong to cause it as well. (NDA still applies here)
-
Apparently the JSDF has painted up an F-15
(https://i.imgur.com/PhafEyp.jpg)
-
When the Range Control Officer on the testing support ship ordered the destruct (a feature available on test missiles only), telemetry said the guidance system was starting to right the missile.
And Lockheed and the Navy knew exactly what went wrong to cause it as well. (NDA still applies here)
It's supposedly come out since, according to various crew that launched her. They say that the float to the surface had a problem with getting a water spike into the rocket bell that caused off-axis thrust, which was solved with condoms supposedly. Makes sense, something disposable to keep water out of the combustion chamber. Post-fix four launches were entirely successful.
That said, imagine being some Grisha captain sitting around and suddenly that pops out of the water and starts spiraling across; talk about a brown-pants moment.
Apparently the JSDF has painted up an F-15
Now that's pretty. Though IMO the Czechs won the eternal aircraft-painting contest.
-
Now that's dedication to detail.
-
Moving to Nebraska later this year. Found out the SAC aerospace museum's in Omaha, so when I get the chance I'll go poke around. They have some BIG damn planes there, go check it out. Might be a few threads before I have pics, but I'll be sure to post links.
https://sacmuseum.org/what-to-see/aircraft/
Meanwhile, for WWII fighters - what's your preference? Machine guns (especially .50s) or automatic cannon, and why?
(http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p63d-25a.jpg)
-
Depends on the job. For bomber-hunting those cannons were fantastic- if you can pop the wing right off a B-17 with a couple of solid hits, that's that much less time you have to spend beating on it before going on to the next one. But the fire rate tended to mean missing agile targets like fighters, where MGs were much handier. There's a good role for both, as the Me-109 and Zero particularly proved.
That said, the B-25s with both in the nose were the ones I always found hilarious- what's more fun than stooping in like a hawk from hell and spamming a Japanese transport ship with a whole mess of bullets and shells?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/53/a8/6653a891aeedc83094449c6b6593d645.jpg)
-
And now I keep thinking of something twisted like an F4U with a MK108 in each wing gun bay instead of the triple M2s. I suppose you'd only really need one 'big gun' for bomberbusting and other roles, and let the MGs be the fighter killer.
-
Cannon and lots of it. There are good reasons why the Spits and Hurricanes developed the Hispano Suiza-armed variants on top of the machine gun models.
-
I think the Mosquito and Beaufighter also did the nose-full-of-MG-and-20mm-goodness
-
I think the Mosquito and Beaufighter also did the nose-full-of-MG-and-20mm-goodness
Yep. And pay homage to their much lesser known granddaddy - the Westland Whirlwind.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/tfox8yf0h/Whirlwind_Mk_I_P7048.jpg)
The 2-engine heavy fighter concept may not have worked all the time, but when it did it worked swell... These are my favourites of WW2.
-
(http://www.boldmethod.com/images/blog/lists/2014/08/17-little-known-facts-about-the-p-38-lightning/2.jpg)
The superlative twin-engined fighter of WW2
-
[img width=600]http://www.boldmethod.com/images/blog/lists/2014/08/17-little-known-facts-about-the-p-38-lightning/2.jpg[/url
The superlative twin-engined fighter of WW2
Love the Lightning and the Black Widow. Always had a thing for twin Booms,
-
Love the Lightning and the Black Widow. Always had a thing for twin Booms
Hear hear.
-
Awwwwww yeah.
(https://www.classicdriver.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/import/articlesv2/images/_uk/16712/Artcurial_Dehavilland_Vampire_For_Sale_02pop.jpg?itok=ha_oMFU0)
-
Yep. And pay homage to their much lesser known granddaddy - the Westland Whirlwind.
The 2-engine heavy fighter concept may not have worked all the time, but when it did it worked swell... These are my favourites of WW2.
I find it hilarious that the engine nacelles have a larger diameter than the fuselage on that one...
-
Depends on the job. For bomber-hunting those cannons were fantastic- if you can pop the wing right off a B-17 with a couple of solid hits, that's that much less time you have to spend beating on it before going on to the next one. But the fire rate tended to mean missing agile targets like fighters, where MGs were much handier. There's a good role for both, as the Me-109 and Zero particularly proved.
I agree...why choose when you can have both? My personal preference would be for designs like the P-61 Black Widow or F7F Tigercat with 4 each of 20 mm cannon and .50 caliber machine guns...
Ruger
-
Fascinating read, and very nice pics
End of the day, logistics really does have the final say
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22447/remembering-when-the-366th-wing-was-an-experimental-rapid-response-air-force-in-a-box
(http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1532720761187-jjaajd1x.jpg)
(http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1532721061689-jjajn1.jpg)
-
Carrier version of the HAL Tejas undergoing testing (as if there are any Tejas doing things that are not testing...)
(https://defpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HAL-LCA-Tejas-Navy.jpg)
-
Does "Hanger Queen" count as not testing? ;)
-
No, it is testing the adequacy of the load rating of the hangar floor :D
-
No, it is testing the adequacy of the load rating of the hangar floor :D
Sure, it's testing patience. If there's a project that could make the ATF (F-22) and JSF (F-35) projects look prompt, this (or the Arjun) would be the ones.
Requirements were finalized in 1985 and first flight was in 2001. So far, they've managed to get 9 delivered, and it looks like any 'operational' date is hypothetical. The real kicker is that by the numbers, it's almost a direct match for the JF-17 Thunder (although the Tejas should get better fuel economy from the F404 instead of the smokey RD93 the JF-17 uses). Except the JF-17 is operational, the project took half the time, and it looks like it has half the per-unit cost of the Tejas*.
*Since the Tejas is still in evaluation limbo and subject to revision, I'd argue that it's not possible to know its definite program and per-unit costs yet except the estimates will only be going up
The Myanmar air force uses a strikingly blue paint scheme on their planes.
JF-17:
(https://defpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Myanmar_Air_Force_JF-17_FC-1_Fighter.jpg)
Mig-29:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Myanmar_Air_Force_MiG-29_MRD.jpg)
-
The less said about the Indian defence industry the better.
Eh, looks pretty Russian inspired. I prefer the original. But can't decide which Russian camo is the coolest tho, the Navy blue, the winter splinter, or the other winter
(https://s8.postimg.cc/inzzk4qut/Fighter_Airplane_Sukhoi_Su-30_SM_Flight_Russian_532554_2560x1440.jpg)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/9g7r3irj9/3719c33f467b14e6bd579b3d0a9c1693.jpg)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/gxgyidm3p/su-30.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbGIzoxL-4
Certainly was an interesting concept that was used before on the 2 airships the USN operated in the interwar period.
-
I've allways had a fondness for Soviet/Russian camo schemes.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbGIzoxL-4
Certainly was an interesting concept that was used before on the 2 airships the USN operated in the interwar period.
My prediction is watch this space on that concept - just think what you could do with a UAV airship with small reconnaissance UAV, ground attack UAVs and air superiority UCAVs that could be launched from it.
-
I'm not knocking the BUFF. Far from it. But there's another plane keeping it company, watching the whippersnappers come & go ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKboGmhWsAAADLI.jpg)
W.
-
Ha. Look at the fighters' angles-of-attack in slow flight.
Speaking of which, here's a cool comparison:
(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/343804/6988027/1274242815743/Boeing-40-and-787.jpg?token=%2BWijQw3wyKjB0vNw16kQqne6WL4%3D)
This is one of my favorites.
-
I'm not knocking the BUFF. Far from it. But there's another plane keeping it company, watching the whippersnappers come & go ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKboGmhWsAAADLI.jpg)
W.
Neither the Bear nor the Crusader were flying in 1950
-
???
I thought that the Bear and the Crusader were flown from mid-1950s onwards :-\
-
crusader started service in '57, Bear in '56.
but that pic is 60s or later for sure.
-
Speaking of 50s and 60s aviation . . .
(http://www.707.adastron.com/gallery/vh-ebh-5.jpg)
-
Anyone familiar with the... Boeing Skyfox?
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/News%20Stories%20J/A%20Sexy%20Beast/SkyFox05.jpg)
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/News%20Stories%20J/A%20Sexy%20Beast/SkyFox04.jpg)
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/News%20Stories%20J/A%20Sexy%20Beast/SkyFox11.jpg)
-
Boeing Skyfox was supposed to replace the T-33 trainer. Tested by the USAF...but didnt go forward with the buy. Looks really neat but just didn't go further then the test plane.
-
Cute in that camo scheme, but can it do a barrel roll?
-
Complete fantasy, but still pretty damn cool:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/2b/43/992b43e20bf807f8306378a902900625.png)
-
More believable than most, but dear lord those canards - the tip vortex going right into the turboprop like that would give me nightmares. Still a damn good job.
-
Report is out. RAAF Growler that aborted takeoff at Nellis AFB in flames a few months ago is an economic write-off.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-19/warplanes-engine-destroyed-itself-during-attempted-take-off/10129180 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-19/warplanes-engine-destroyed-itself-during-attempted-take-off/10129180)
-
Catastrophic fan failure is hugely destructive, I'm not surprised. Remember United 232?
-
So, given everyone got out safely, can we make jokes?
My first question is: was it still covered by warranty?
Follow up question, would the sale/warranty be challenged under Australian or US sales law?
More seriously, I think I read that the RAAF had a tranche of their FA-18Fs fitted to allow upgrading to F-18G in terms of wiring ports and things in the structure so they can create more if needed but 11 or 12 is still a reasonable number to allow a deployment of a detachment, especially given they won't be carrier based so 4 or 5 could probably be continuously deployed
-
"Tranche" is a new term I am seeing come into use is this the same as "Block"?
-
"Tranche" is a new term I am seeing come into use is this the same as "Block"?
I think it is somewhere between that and a Mark
So a Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon is from the first block of them delivered and is also a capability designation, it might be upgraded to Tranche 2 standard or replaced by a Tranche 2 fighter
-
found a more useful link than my vague guesses
the Wikipedia page about "tranche" is dedicated solely to high finance stuff so means nothing to me!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Procurement,_production_and_costs
-
It's basically just a synonym for "batch".
-
The Growlers are not very old at all, but I assume that they are not covered by warranty (they have been flying in Iraq the last couple of years). The were procured via FMS (Foreign Military Sales) through the US Navy so first port of call will be through US DoD then back to the manufacturers. Hopefully with the US Navy/DoD influence/buying power we will at least get a discount on a replacement.
I assume the airframe will make a great training aid for battle damage assessment/repair.
-
I'm not sure this has been posted here yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgSrpd3MxY4&t=35s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgSrpd3MxY4&t=35s)
RAF is turning 100 this year and part of the anniversary is this documentary.
I watched it in the US through Amazon, and it was worth the $5 rental. This is one of the best shot documentaries i have ever seen. Beautiful blend of archival footage with voice-overs from those that made, transported, flew, and fought the planes with excellent modern footage of Spitfires flying. Well worth the hour and a half runtime.
-
I'm not sure this has been posted here yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgSrpd3MxY4&t=35s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgSrpd3MxY4&t=35s)
RAF is turning 100 this year and part of the anniversary is this documentary.
I watched it in the US through Amazon, and it was worth the $5 rental. This is one of the best shot documentaries i have ever seen. Beautiful blend of archival footage with voice-overs from those that made, transported, flew, and fought the planes with excellent modern footage of Spitfires flying. Well worth the hour and a half runtime.
The Spitfire is just about the perfect opposite of the F-4 Phantom
-
It's basically just a synonym for "batch".
Thanks! This about what i figured.
-
It's basically just a synonym for "batch".
Indeed. Tranche is a daily word which is in fact borrowed from the french language into portuguese that means "block" or "batch". More commonly used in finance.
-
Also used in audit; it looks more professional than "batch" ;)
-
Tranche is usually only used in finance, yes. Perhaps it was linked with warplane production when financing started becoming an issue.
-
The Us has a idea for a Tubroprop bomber called the XB55. It looks like a B47 with props.
-
The Us has a idea for a Tubroprop bomber called the XB55. It looks like a B47 with props.
You mean; "had"? surely?
Because they did that one...back in 1949.
One of the B-52's cancelled competitors, as you might derive.
-
It looks like a B47 with props.
Which is precisely what it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-55
-
Meanwhile Iran unveils its first actually domestically designed and built 100% totally original do not steal fighter...
No guys it really is, trust me. They swore for sure!
-
You mean; "had"? surely?
Because they did that one...back in 1949.
One of the B-52's cancelled competitors, as you might derive.
A lot of Tu-95 Bear in that design....or is it the other way around??
I was trying to post a photo...having problems with the download.
-
A lot of Tu-95 Bear in that design....or is it the other way around??
I was trying to post a photo...having problems with the download.
In the sense that they are both influenced heavily by the B-29; yes.
-
Meanwhile Iran unveils its first actually domestically designed and built 100% totally original do not steal fighter...
No guys it really is, trust me. They swore for sure!
Totally serious for reals jet fighter. Massive technological breakthrough yo.
-
Well that's embarrassing. Midair emergency forces a landing at Eglin, followed by...well, that.
-
Well that's embarrassing. Midair emergency forces a landing at Eglin, followed by...well, that.
Photoshop? or did they construct the model and have the pipes holding the wheel break?
-
Gear things happen in planes, new, old and whatever. I know in the last couple of weeks a C-5M and a Q400 landed with the nose gear up.
-
Photoshop? or did they construct the model and have the pipes holding the wheel break?
Not shopped. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/22/f-35-landing-gear-collapses-after-in-flight-emergency/
-
Not shopped. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/22/f-35-landing-gear-collapses-after-in-flight-emergency/
Maybe if they made it out of metal and plastic, instead of solid gold, the landing gear could have held up the nose...lol (actually, at that price, it's artisanally shaped gold, with diamond and ruby accents under that gray paint...)
-
Modern fast jet fighters are expensive. Not even the F-16V is really "cheap".
-
Meanwhile Iran unveils its first actually domestically designed and built 100% totally original do not steal fighter...
No guys it really is, trust me. They swore for sure!
Clearly no relation to this plane they were using in the '80's against Iraq....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Iranian_Northrop_F-5_during_Iran-Iraq_war.jpg/800px-Iranian_Northrop_F-5_during_Iran-Iraq_war.jpg)
-
What's even weirder is that a year or two ago (I thought) they were trumpeting a twin-tailed version as being new, and at least that did something different. But all their reveals so far have been the single tail, even the one Rouhani sat in. Anyone know what happened to the twin-tail F-5? I kinda liked it, actually.
-
It's only a model.
What's even weirder is that a year or two ago (I thought) they were trumpeting a twin-tailed version as being new, and at least that did something different. But all their reveals so far have been the single tail, even the one Rouhani sat in. Anyone know what happened to the twin-tail F-5? I kinda liked it, actually.
-
Modern fast jet fighters are expensive. Not even the F-16V is really "cheap".
There's "expensive" and then there's "A wing will cost you more than the carrier it's supposed to fly off of." followed of course by "Oh, and it's so maintenance intensive that it can't be based in forward bases it's supposed to be based from that are the entire reason for the STOVL/VSTOL performance that costs so much."
it's kinda like using a multi-million dollar missile to precisely take out two kids on a fifty dollar motorcycle. at some point, it becomes a question of economic viability along the lines of "if I can build a moon colony for the price, (and get more in return) do I really need this?"
especially when cheaper options are already in service that do the job just as well, or better.
not to mention the USAF recently opening a "Light strike aircraft" competition because Jets cost a lot to upkeep for most of the missions they actually get to do. ( you actually don't need supersonic performance to provide ground support in a COIN role, and small fuel tanks means your supersonics aren't available when and where they're needed most.)
consider the ongoing conflicts world wide, how often is twenty-year-old Stealth tech actually needed vs. the ability to linger over a battlefield and provide immediate air-support? High performance jets work best in the Air superiority role,but once air superiority has been secured, what's the mission? Does the mission benefit from reduced carriage, short fuel range, or high maintenance costs,or does it benefit from rapid turnaround, long duration, and proportionally heavy warloads (aka large amounts of bombs,rockets, and gunfire?)
There's a point where this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/F-35A_flight_%28cropped%29.jpg/300px-F-35A_flight_%28cropped%29.jpg)
is, honestly, less useful than This:
(http://)
or this:(https://www.z-car.com/blog//wp-content/gallery/fma-ia-58-pucara/pucara_20SL_1_.jpg)
or this:(https://inhomelandsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/05/OV-10-bronco-in-action-e1464791754661.jpg)
and it's not really a replacement for this: (https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a54f121c32ae644008b5412-750-375.jpg)
-
It's a first-in strike bird to take out a target in a heavily hostile airspace and RTB without being seen. And the Israelis have been doing just that with their Adirs; they've put the F-35 into combat already with fine results. Multiple high-value targets hit amidst Syrian and modern Russian air defenses, no losses. And it's not like it's the SA-6 days, give their opposition some credit.
-
Cannonshop: What, no Super Tucano? ???
(http://www.indepaz.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/A29_Super_Tucano_FAC.jpg)
And a warning: when I retrieved that image, my anti-virus blocked a coin mining attack, so you can look, but I wouldn't touch.
-
It's not that much more expensive than the proposed F-15X, yet lots more stealthy. Bit cheaper than the proposed F-15SE in fact.
The VTOL F35B is not meant for operating in austere forward bases, it's meant for the jarheads, Royal Navy and other allies to operate fast air off of non-nuclear/mini-carriers.
Taking the non-stealth option is just trying to win by brute force of numbers - if I launch more missiles hopefully I kill more of you than you kill of me.
Whereas stealth/LO is defeating the problem in a different way, and it appears effective enough that rival nations are desperately trying to follow suit.
While I think a small fleet of Tucanos will be useful, not every CAS mission is going to be COIN ops over 100% permissive airspace. The USAF needs to prepare to fight the next war not the last, and we can see that the world is going back to neo-Cold War superpower struggles - the preliminary rounds of that fight have already been played, and I don't think the US was the winner...
As a replacement for the F-16, A-10, AV-8B, A-7, F-111, F-117, it does bring quite something else to the party I think.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/c2c453dc62909f0b44d2dd7010a2e93a/tumblr_pdz31ti4671th7tzzo1_500.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/2e186b0a93fe3fa37c37ff6d03466acb/tumblr_pdz31ti4671th7tzzo5_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/482c9f5f48be414aa57aedc32613b39c/tumblr_pdz31ti4671th7tzzo7_1280.jpg)
The French Latécoère 298 a fighter/torpedo bomber float plane.
-
Did not know they were considered fighters as well!
-
That is one big fighter.
-
That is one big fighter.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/UaC6o.jpg)
Big fighters?
-
It's not that much more expensive than the proposed F-15X, yet lots more stealthy. Bit cheaper than the proposed F-15SE in fact.
The VTOL F35B is not meant for operating in austere forward bases, it's meant for the jarheads, Royal Navy and other allies to operate fast air off of non-nuclear/mini-carriers.
Taking the non-stealth option is just trying to win by brute force of numbers - if I launch more missiles hopefully I kill more of you than you kill of me.
Whereas stealth/LO is defeating the problem in a different way, and it appears effective enough that rival nations are desperately trying to follow suit.
While I think a small fleet of Tucanos will be useful, not every CAS mission is going to be COIN ops over 100% permissive airspace. The USAF needs to prepare to fight the next war not the last, and we can see that the world is going back to neo-Cold War superpower struggles - the preliminary rounds of that fight have already been played, and I don't think the US was the winner...
As a replacement for the F-16, A-10, AV-8B, A-7, F-111, F-117, it does bring quite something else to the party I think.
I'll take issue with it being even remotely adequate as a replacement for the A-10, it doesn't fit the role, much less fill the role. The A-10's role includes something called "Linger time" over the battlefield-and the '35 doesn't have the gas, or the lift, or the capacity, or the resistance to ground fire, or the visibility from the cockpit. (Lift, in this context, being measured by aerodynamic wing loading. The numbers on the F-35 make the F-104 look like a glider. it flies only because it's got lots and lots of thrust, which requires the big fuel tank it doesn't have.)
"Linger time" over the battlefield can be most accurately discussed in terms of "How many minutes can you be over the target before you're bingo for fuel?"
becuaaaas...when you're on the ground calling for air support, the longer you have to wait? the scarier things are going to get. That wait time gets hella longer if your fighter cover has to scuttle back to the base/carrier to refuel because they've been on station for twenty minutes and the carrier is thirty minutes out.
A-10 has linger time measured in hours and can get down in the weeds without fear. the F-35 can't even fly in bad weather, and those composites mean it can't afford to get in close enough so if you don't have a laser designator in your kit, you're basically hoping the GPS coordinates guiding that bomb are correct and enough sats are over the horizon to keep it falling straight.
WHEN he's in range to react to calls for fire, which is going to be less often than when he's not.
AV-8 Can forward-deploy, it's not nearly as delicate or environmentally sensitive, which shortens the necessary sortie time...
and speaking of sortie time (turnaround at airbases) the F-5 out performs it, with a smaller airframe that is 1950s tech...
with the same bomb load. and F-5 is a frikking interceptor, it's not BUILT (or claimed to be built) for the role.
like I said, a fighter that the wing costs more than the carrier they're based on, that can't do the job as well as the planes it's replacing.
-
I'll take issue with it being even remotely adequate as a replacement for the A-10, it doesn't fit the role, much less fill the role. The A-10's role includes something called "Linger time" over the battlefield-and the '35 doesn't have the gas, or the lift, or the capacity, or the resistance to ground fire, or the visibility from the cockpit. (Lift, in this context, being measured by aerodynamic wing loading. The numbers on the F-35 make the F-104 look like a glider. it flies only because it's got lots and lots of thrust, which requires the big fuel tank it doesn't have.)
"Linger time" over the battlefield can be most accurately discussed in terms of "How many minutes can you be over the target before you're bingo for fuel?"
becuaaaas...when you're on the ground calling for air support, the longer you have to wait? the scarier things are going to get. That wait time gets hella longer if your fighter cover has to scuttle back to the base/carrier to refuel because they've been on station for twenty minutes and the carrier is thirty minutes out.
A-10 has linger time measured in hours and can get down in the weeds without fear. the F-35 can't even fly in bad weather, and those composites mean it can't afford to get in close enough so if you don't have a laser designator in your kit, you're basically hoping the GPS coordinates guiding that bomb are correct and enough sats are over the horizon to keep it falling straight.
WHEN he's in range to react to calls for fire, which is going to be less often than when he's not.
AV-8 Can forward-deploy, it's not nearly as delicate or environmentally sensitive, which shortens the necessary sortie time...
and speaking of sortie time (turnaround at airbases) the F-5 out performs it, with a smaller airframe that is 1950s tech...
with the same bomb load. and F-5 is a frikking interceptor, it's not BUILT (or claimed to be built) for the role.
like I said, a fighter that the wing costs more than the carrier they're based on, that can't do the job as well as the planes it's replacing.
If you want long linger time and close air support in an unopposed sky then a Skyraider would probably be about the best bet if you want something more recent than true WW2 vintage.
In the event of something happening which needs a lot of bomb-trucks, realistically this could be generated from training aircraft or similar (there was a Cold War plan to equip the RAF's Hawk trainers with Sidewinders and rockets).
What might well be needed is the ability to launch a "stealthy" first strike and while the F-35 is far from perfect, it is currently the only real game in town as a strike aircraft to fulfil that role and for later sorties it can be hung with external ordnance and fuel tanks.
-
If you want long linger time and close air support in an unopposed sky then a Skyraider would probably be about the best bet if you want something more recent than true WW2 vintage.
In the event of something happening which needs a lot of bomb-trucks, realistically this could be generated from training aircraft or similar (there was a Cold War plan to equip the RAF's Hawk trainers with Sidewinders and rockets).
What might well be needed is the ability to launch a "stealthy" first strike and while the F-35 is far from perfect, it is currently the only real game in town as a strike aircraft to fulfil that role and for later sorties it can be hung with external ordnance and fuel tanks.
which is an entirely different role from close air support, and given the F-35's bomb load, you might be better off flying in a Skyraider at low altitude at night, or sending a B-2 from Nellis on a long-haul flight, or...
get the picture?
Stealthy first strike is a Strategic bombing role, not a Tactical bombing role. further, your external fuel tanks pretty much negate any and all 'Stealthy" attributes, just like opening the bomb bays on a B-2 does, only from a lot further away, as does/would under-wing ordnance. (The 'stealth" features go bye-bye when you hang the bombs on the wings, this is why F-35 and F-22 both have INTERNAL ordnance bays).
upshot being it can't operate in a 'stealthy' mode while also carrying external fuel or a decent bomb load, and calculating your bomb load isn't hard, just look at the published external measurements and work out how much internal volume the fighter's got. (not a lot).
-
unfortunately there has been a push lately to replace most of the tactical strike options with either guided bombs dropped from strategic platforms like the B-52 or B-1 circling the entire country at high altitude overhead, or fast moving light jets which don't spend much time loitering.
it only just barely works for the sorts of counter-insurgency ops so prevalent today, with emphasis on 'barely'. i suspect the assumption is that future shooting wars will mostly go like the gulf wars.. where opening strategic air campaigns are so effective there won't be any need for long loiter time tactical roles that can't be done by drones.
rather wishful thinking IMO.
-
unfortunately there has been a push lately to replace most of the tactical strike options with either guided bombs dropped from strategic platforms like the B-52 or B-1 circling the entire country at high altitude overhead, or fast moving light jets which don't spend much time loitering.
it only just barely works for the sorts of counter-insurgency ops so prevalent today, with emphasis on 'barely'. i suspect the assumption is that future shooting wars will mostly go like the gulf wars.. where opening strategic air campaigns are so effective there won't be any need for long loiter time tactical roles that can't be done by drones.
rather wishful thinking IMO.
it's not a recent phenomena, but a return to early cold-war thinking where the airforce will pass over and all the infantry needs is to follow behind and paint the lines on the parking lot.
that same thinking is why and how things like the B-26K, A-1, and OV-10 wound up being 'reinvented' in the sixties-because 'precision high altitude bombing' is a trick with extremely limited use defined more by a specific sort of terrain.
speaking of B-26K.(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbuzvRFpogwFZDUouZXbQscSJHx0F_z1O2os_43fRT43f3jhAiZQ)
a design that over 20 years old and utterly obsolete at the time the U.S. brought it back into warfare, yet quite sufficient for the mission of the time.
Drones suffer from the basic problem of being remote-controlled. By the time you get a drone that can sort friendlies from enemies for the CAS role, you've reached a point where the F-35's basically irrelevant-it's EASIER to hit strategic sites than to sort enemy from friendly on the ground in a fight.
-
Wait. Didn't the mods ask us to stop debating the F-35?
-
I think so? Can't remember exactly, so I won't do anything if it stops now. C:-)
-
I've always loved the B-24J. Specifically that model, with the forward turret; it's just such a thunderously ugly airplane I adore it.
(https://i.redd.it/5n22iouuhk3z.jpg)
-
Something seems to be wrong with your image tags...
-
The B24 never got the love and recognition it deserved. It could fly further, faster and carry more than the B17. Yet I can't think of any WW2 movie where the bomb group is made up of B24s or pilot is a B24 pilot.
-
The B24 never got the love and recognition it deserved. It could fly further, faster and carry more than the B17. Yet I can't think of any WW2 movie where the bomb group is made up of B24s or pilot is a B24 pilot.
Stories always gave more recognization to the B-17 for the battle damage it could endure.
-
To be fair, you guys very kindly and informally asked Cannonshop to discuss something else the last time for fear that he was soapboxing on a topic nobody else was interested in, but this time I was keen on hearing his views on the subject.
Anyway moving on... check out this interesting pic of a bomb flight test. Does the USAF still regularly practice dive-bombing?!
(https://i.imgur.com/PPCtzxJ.jpg)
-
Stories always gave more recognization to the B-17 for the battle damage it could endure.
The B-17 was the 'glory bomber' kind of like the P-51, in that it looks good on newsreels. The B-24 was far more technologically innovative, and had a list of superior aspects, but, it's (hate to say it) not as sleek and 'smexy' looking.
(http://warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/CAF_B-24-Diamond-Lil_-Photo-by-Scott-Slocum-678x381.jpg)
(https://www.lonestarflight.org/public/styles/slider/public/DSC_0539.jpg?itok=S4zPMydz&c=fd3cc74fb6c239888f755099a22bb22d)
-
To be fair, you guys very kindly and informally asked Cannonshop to discuss something else the last time for fear that he was soapboxing on a topic nobody else was interested in, but this time I was keen on hearing his views on the subject.
Anyway moving on... check out this interesting pic of a bomb flight test. Does the USAF still regularly practice dive-bombing?!
(https://i.imgur.com/PPCtzxJ.jpg)
That photo is unlikely to be USAF practicing dive-bombing . . . ;)
RAAF regularly practice both bombing and strafing with the F/A-18. Up until recently we had three squadrons that operate the F/A-18A/Bs as multi-role fighters - one squadron specialised in air-to-air, one in air-to-ground and one as a multi-role. All three are cross-trained in all roles but each squadron has a different emphasis. We are now down to 2 squadrons with No. 3 Squadron RAAF in the process taking delivery of F-35A.
-
Interesting. Yes Feenix, parts of your No. 3 Sqdn are finding new life this side of the pond keeping RMAF F-18s flying.
It's a bomb flight profile test, though, not a practice dive bomb per se. But it does beg the question if dive-bombing is still part of the modern strike repertoire.
-
(http://worldwarwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Buccaneernobutton-735x413.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O3lXeSf-ZQo/hqdefault.jpg)
And here we see the Buccaneer flying exceptionally high, the pilot might get written up for his altitude in these pics.
-
Interesting. Yes Feenix, parts of your No. 3 Sqdn are finding new life this side of the pond keeping RMAF F-18s flying.
It's a bomb flight profile test, though, not a practice dive bomb per se. But it does beg the question if dive-bombing is still part of the modern strike repertoire.
That is good to read, we do not always see eye to eye with the Malaysians but we do share common history and national interests.
I can confirm that dive bombing is practiced along with a few other bombing profiles.
-
(http://worldwarwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Buccaneernobutton-735x413.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O3lXeSf-ZQo/hqdefault.jpg)
And here we see the Buccaneer flying exceptionally high, the pilot might get written up for his altitude in these pics.
One of my favourite cold war planes. Nice finds
I've read stories of Buccaneers evading interception in Red Flag and other exercises by flying too low and too slow.
-
Speaking of low passes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOoiEbtf2w
-
One of my favourite Spitfire video clips of all time :thumbsup:
-
That photo is unlikely to be USAF practicing dive-bombing . . . ;)
It's definitely USAF, check the star-and-bar under the cockpit and LERX.
Meanwhile at Biggin Hill...
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/NewStories-C/Lower%20than%20a%20snake/LowDown75.jpg)
-
To be fair, you guys very kindly and informally asked Cannonshop to discuss something else the last time for fear that he was soapboxing on a topic nobody else was interested in, but this time I was keen on hearing his views on the subject.
Anyway moving on... check out this interesting pic of a bomb flight test. Does the USAF still regularly practice dive-bombing?!
(https://i.imgur.com/PPCtzxJ.jpg)
Considering that is a F/A 18. More likely to be USMC or USN.
-
Also one last low pass, one that makes me think it's shopped - or else that the pilot's trying to hi-5 a gecko...
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uq_EdprAmmY/sddefault.jpg)
-
Considering that is a F/A 18. More likely to be USMC or USN.
:thumbsup:
-
navy. reverse image search reveals it is a plane from the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Three (VX-23), during a stores separation test for the 1000lb Mk-83 bomb.
which would explain all the black and white markings on the plane and bombs.. high vis markings to make it easier to track their movement on film afterwards.
-
navy. reverse image search reveals it is a plane from the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Three (VX-23), during a stores separation test for the 1000lb Mk-83 bomb.
which would explain all the black and white markings on the plane and bombs.. high vis markings to make it easier to track their movement on film afterwards.
I intially thought the bombs were decorated with white stars on a blue background and Immediately thought 'MERICA!!!'
-
Considering that is a F/A 18. More likely to be USMC or USN.
Me not know, me just know is Freedom Burd
Kidding :p
-
Also one last low pass, one that makes me think it's shopped - or else that the pilot's trying to hi-5 a gecko...
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uq_EdprAmmY/sddefault.jpg)
https://theaviationist.com/2009/03/25/low-level-tornado-ecr/
Google reverse image search is your friend. Just need to put in a bit of effort to track it down.
-
Weird; I only got two results and both were youtube links. Thanks!
Have the RAF's version of sneaking up behind someone with a firecracker.
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/F-4-Phantom-low-pass.jpg)
-
I call bullshit, aint no phantom sneaking up on anybody
-
WOOSH. ;D
-
In honor of USN Captain and Senator John McCain's passing, an A-4 Skyhawk in his old aircraft's livery.
(http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/nnam/item_images/A-4_Quarterdeck.jpg)
-
In honor of USN Captain and Senator John McCain's passing, an A-4 Skyhawk in his old aircraft's livery.
(http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/nnam/item_images/A-4_Quarterdeck.jpg)
"Hightail"
-
Not photoshopped.
-
Okay, B-17G nose on a B-24. Why?
-
Battle damage repairs more than likely.
Okay, B-17G nose on a B-24. Why?
-
Apparently it was an attempt to make a more aerodynamic front end, and give more room to the Liberator crew, but it was just too heavy.
-
Can anyone tell me how wide the fuselage of a B-25 was? I want to find a model with a width of about an inch and a half to two inches for kitbashing purposes, so need to know what scale would be best for this.
-
Says 45 inches here- https://b-25history.org/history/b25.htm
-
Hmm...sounds like 1/32 might be my best bet. That ain't gonna be cheap...
-
there are 1/48 scale versions of both, plus Verlinden and others have done vignette style sets for just the B17 nose
granted the prices on those type sets are around the same price as the whole Monogram B17 kit
-
The size is the important part. My goal is the nose and cockpit area of a strafer B-25, about 1.5"-2" wide.
-
I'm a 1/72 scale person myself.
-
That 45" fuselage width has been in my head since I typed it. That's damn narrow. That I'm 6'5" and 24" across the shoulders while trying to imagine myself and a co-pilot sitting shoulder-to-shoulder in it doesn't help me. That is ****** insane. A sub-compact car is larger than that. At airshows, I've been in a B-17, B-24, and B-29. At the time I could hardly believe crews doing their job in those "big" birds. This... wow. I guess the Hollywood "Tardis effect" is too firmly implanted in my brain.
This is also something to keep in mind when looking at BattleMech cockpits. They don't have to be school bus sized like MWO shows them. This makes it easier to imagine how a MechWarrior can fit in the cockpit of a 3025 Spider.
-
I suspect Hollywood sets were far larger than the actual planes. :)
Ah well. 1/32 scale models are way too expensive and my final size needs are kinda fixed, so I guess I'll think of a different concept for a post-apocalyptic war rig.
-
I suspect Hollywood sets were far larger than the actual planes. :)
Just a touch, yes.
Ah well. 1/32 scale models are way too expensive and my final size needs are kinda fixed, so I guess I'll think of a different concept for a post-apocalyptic war rig.
Any chance you have access to 3D printing?
On a side note, "B-25 Mitchell 1/32 scale" is one of the first suggestions when I do a google search for 3D models. Must be you. :D
-
I thought dive bombing is not practiced as much because of JDAM's and other tech that makes that kinda useless.
-
Tech breaks and isn't always available. We teach gun engagements because sometimes you can't rely on missiles, for that matter.
-
I thought dive bombing is not practiced as much because of JDAM's and other tech that makes that kinda useless.
Not so much that. Dive bombing was much more accurate, in the days of iron bombs. However, it makes you very vulnerable to ground fire. Nowadays we have more targetted options, and a more hostile ground environment.
-
Ballistic computers allow a lot more flexibility in delivery methods of unguided munitions as well
-
Okay, B-17G nose on a B-24. Why?
I think that's the escortversion; YB-41. They built uno prototype-o.
-
Wiki calls it the XB-41 (I guess it would have been YB-41 if it had entered service). I found it interesting that the B-17 escort gunship (YB-40) actually did enter service. Was four MGs and some extra armor really worth losing the bombload?
-
Nope. Failed to realise the intended benefits.
-
Nope. Failed to realise the intended benefits.
Yeah...from what I've read, they never shot down many fighters (maybe a dozen or so over all their missions), and lost one of their number during one mission...
Now, imagine if it had instead been turned into the first ground-attack gunship instead of an escort bird...
Ruger
-
Yeah...from what I've read, they never shot down many fighters (maybe a dozen or so over all their missions), and lost one of their number during one mission...
Now, imagine if it had instead been turned into the first ground-attack gunship instead of an escort bird...
Well, escorts are not strictly intended to kill the enemy, just to make sure the enemy doesn't kill whatever's being escorted... But I can't see how they'd do very well at that either.
-
Well, escorts are not strictly intended to kill the enemy, just to make sure the enemy doesn't kill whatever's being escorted... But I can't see how they'd do very well at that either.
Well, there were also apparently a few missions where they didn't/couldn't link up with the bomber groups they were to escort too...
Ruger
-
That's not really a design problem...
-
From my reading on it, the extra MGs and MG ammo actually slowed the YB-40 to slower than the B 17s they were supposed to escort. So it wasn't a problem of not being able to link up but rather a problem of not being able to keep up. I wonder if a better idea would have been to replace the bomb load on a few B 26s for extra fuel and MGs to escort with?
-
Now THAT could be a design problem...
-
B26s yeah
B26s with 8 .50 cals in the nose? hell yeah
ok probably not but yeah 25s or 26s could have been a possible stopgap
escort till more fighters were available
faster than the heavies, good range, swap the bomb load for more fuel and a little bit of armor plate and double up the guns on the waist gunners and we might have worked, literally could have been tested with a little foresight and some volunteers
-
They had P-38s in Europe. These didn't work well for a variety of reasons - lack of supercharger, poor suitability for high altitude work, and size.
If the Lightning didn't work, a B-26 ain't going to work. The answers were Thunderbolts and Mustangs.
-
They had P-38s in Europe. These didn't work well for a variety of reasons - lack of supercharger, poor suitability for high altitude work, and size.
the ones in the pacific had superchargers though, and didn't have many issues working at high altitude. why the difference between the theaters?
-
If the Lightning didn't work, a B-26 ain't going to work. The answers were Thunderbolts and Mustangs.
As long as you weren't saddled with those early Mustangs carrying four jamomatic Hispanos. For some reason the Americans never bothered to fix their chamber issues with them.
-
the ones in the pacific had superchargers though, and didn't have many issues working at high altitude. why the difference between the theaters?
Find Martin Caidin's excellent "Fork-Tailed Devils". As I recall:
1) The European Lightnings lacked superchargers because the Air Force didn't want the Brits getting their hands on them.
2) The Lighting had been designed for low to medium altitude. It lacked cockpit heating & navigation aids that made long high-altitude flights painful.
3) Being larger, the Lighting could be seen by the Germans long before they saw the Me-109s.
4) The early lightings had problems with compression in high-speed dives. The German main escape technique was the "Split-S" - a half-roll followed by a steep dive. If the Lighting followed, they often had problems pulling out.
(Side note - several hundred airbrake kits were assembled & flown in a special cargo flight to try and fix this problem. The cargo plane got shot down - accidentally - by the British)
By comparison, the Lightings were adored in the African campaign. Torch was predicated on a supply of Lightnings, the only fighters capable of covering the invasion beaches. They continued to be favoured for the invasion of Sicily & Italy - low to medium level flight, enormous range, great power, capable of losing an engine & flying back, etc etc.
Later Lightings addressed many of the problems, but served mainly in the Pacific by that point. Which was not a high-altitude war - except for the B-29s, who didn't need escort by that point.
Get Caidin's book. Oddly enough, there's a ripper story involving a YB-40, oddly enough.
-
If you folks are ever looking for a great 'what if' with foresight and the lot can I suggest -
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-they-shall-reap-the-whirlwind-story-only-thread.343760/
and in other news of beautiful aircraft -
(http://www.boeingimages.com/Docs/BOE/Media/TR3_WATERMARKED/1/6/a/0/BI41760.jpg)
The XF-11
-
As long as you weren't saddled with those early Mustangs carrying four jamomatic Hispanos. For some reason the Americans never bothered to fix their chamber issues with them.
And they were told repeatedly what was wrong with them by the British. Good ol US Army Ordnance IIRC.
They had P-38s in Europe. These didn't work well for a variety of reasons - lack of supercharger, poor suitability for high altitude work, and size.
If the Lightning didn't work, a B-26 ain't going to work. The answers were Thunderbolts and Mustangs.
Most of the issues the lightnings had was IIRC they were taken over from a British order. The Brits didn't want superchargers and gave them single-handed engines instead of right engine and left engine being reversed because they wanted full engine parts commonality with the P-40 Tomahawk. Americans fixed the latter... but they still lacked the superchargers. The ones built properly IIRC worked fine.
-
They had P-38s in Europe. These didn't work well for a variety of reasons - lack of supercharger, poor suitability for high altitude work, and size.
From the Wikipedia article on Test Pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown, holder of the record for most types of aircraft flown:
"During this same period the RAE was approached by United States Army Air Forces' (USAAF) General Jimmy Doolittle with a request for help, as the 8th Air Force had been having trouble when their Lightning, Thunderbolt and Mustang aircraft, providing top cover for the bombers, dived down onto attacking German fighters, some of the diving U.S. fighters encountering speed regions where they became difficult to control.
As a result of Doolittle's request, early in 1944 the P-38H Lightning, Packard Merlin-powered P-51B Mustang and P-47C Thunderbolt were dived for compressibility testing at the RAE by Brown and several other pilots. The results of the tests were that the tactical Mach numbers, i.e., the manoeuvring limits, were Mach 0.68 for the Lightning, Mach 0.71 for the Thunderbolt and Mach 0.78 for the Mustang. The corresponding figure for both the Fw 190 and Bf 109 was Mach 0.75. The tests flown by Brown and his colleagues resulted in Doolittle being able to argue with his superiors for the Mustang to be chosen in preference to the P-38 and P-47 for all escort duties from then on. "
-
The P-38s big weakness was the Dive. It's was also a big fighter and the German fighters were smaller with seasond pilots at the stick.
-
Well, initially they were. Casualties meant that Germany had fewer and fewer veteran pilots left as the war went on, and fuel shortages put continual restrictions on how much practice new pilots actually had before they were put into combat.
-
Especially since the Germans rarely rotated their experiences pilots off the frontlines to training commands, the way the allies did. Part of the reason the Germans had so many multi-aces was because those pilots just kept flying combat till they got killed. The allies on the other hand would pull aces back to help train the new pilots, letting the new pilots benefit from the experience of the aces and this come out of training better prepared for the fighting.
-
I had a B-25 Mitchell fly over my head twice this morning (two flyover once). There was another single-engined plane but I couldn't figure out what it was.
-
I kinda want to see a model of this.
https://m.warhistoryonline.com/featured/innovative-flawed-fire-hedgehog.html
-
I made a VTR-9Dakka once in MegaMek. 40 machineguns and two tons of ammo. It was a lotta fun having it take down a building in one round, but it was really kinda useless otherwise.
-
I made a VTR-9Dakka once in MegaMek. 40 machineguns and two tons of ammo. It was a lotta fun having it take down a building in one round, but it was really kinda useless otherwise.
Infantry Eraser.
-
What safety equipment?
https://www.4-max.co.uk/photos/tn-designs/zero-01-big.jpg
-
I kinda want to see a model of this.
https://m.warhistoryonline.com/featured/innovative-flawed-fire-hedgehog.html
seems like a primitive form of Gunships like the AC-47 Spooky to me. the advent of modern Gatlings just let you have the same kind of rate of fire and 'hail of bullets' effect at a more practical range and in a less complicated mount.
-
What safety equipment?
https://www.4-max.co.uk/photos/tn-designs/zero-01-big.jpg
What, the camouflage paint doesn't count? :D
-
What safety equipment?
https://www.4-max.co.uk/photos/tn-designs/zero-01-big.jpg
The Smoke Jaguars were clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel at the end...
-
EA-18 Growlers do have a lot of bits and pieces all over them, don't they?
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLszRK93/ahfbgf61oem11.jpg)
-
Nature of the beast.
I always thought that the E-7A Wedgetail probably took the extra bits and pieces thing to the extreme.
(https://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/ain30_fullwidth_large/public/uploads/2017/07/webraaf-wedgetail.jpg?itok=zA1M0616×tamp=1499758237)
-
a 737... with MISSILE RACKS!!! (and a bomb-bay)(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/p-8-pic2.jpg)
-
what bomb bay? The one between the wings? with the landing gears folded up there and a few ports maybe for chaff or bouys?
-
Psst . . . it is not located between the wings . . .
(https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/B7DIYL3ZE5E65D7WMOJO3CDHDU.jpg)
(https://bluejacket.com/usn/images/ac/p-z/p-8a_boeing_poseidon_btm.jpg)
-
The P-8 has the raked wingtips like the 787's and the newer 777's.
Airbus is thinking of doing the same thing with a A320 model to replace some of the patrol planes for France and Germany.
-
The P-8 has the raked wingtips like the 787's and the newer 777's.
Airbus is thinking of doing the same thing with a A320 model to replace some of the patrol planes for France and Germany.
yeah, but you know what?
It won't be nearly as cool, since it's just imitating an approach Boeing took and Airbus didn't, until it was successful.
-
Although the original converted jetliner was the the Comet/Nimrod family, which came with a full-sized bomb bay.
I'm not sure how much further you'd have to go back to find the earliest piston-engined airliner to maritime patrol conversion but things like the Short flying boats and similar would probably qualify
-
Well, according to Wiki, the "first airliner for commercial use" is the Curtiss JN-4, a small biplane which was used by the Elliot Air Service. (For certain definitions of 'airliner' I guess.) It was also the first American mail delivery aircraft, and the first aircraft to make a successful dive bombing attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner#History
The Curtiss JN-4 saw service with many emerging air arms as a trainer, but a variant, the Curtiss N-9, was turned into a floatplane for maritime patrol, amongst other proposed duties.
So it would seem that conversion of civilian commercial airliners into maritime patrol aircraft is a hallowed tradition going all the way back to the very first of its kind...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Curtiss_N-9_NAS_Pensacola_1918.jpg)
-
As Kidd has pointed out if the A320 MPA gets off the drawing board it will be just carrying on a very long tradition that is almost as old as commercial aviation itself.
Another example is the Short Empire flying boat that were built as commercial flying boats but then pressed into service during WW2. In this case "Coolangatta" was originally flown by Imperial Airways and then QANTAS before being pressed into service by the RAAF for anti-submarine patrols and for general transport duties.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/VH-ABBcrop.jpg)
It is also possible to go the other way, as demonstrated by the Short Sunderland flying boat that was originally built as a military flying boat patrol bomber but were also used during WW2 as unarmed civilian airliners. After WW2 a number of Sunderlands were converted for use by civilian commercial aviation, which were known as Short Sandringham; in this configuration, the type continued in airline operation until 1974.
An RAAF Sunderland Mk.III operating from Rose Bay Flying Boat Base, Sydney during WW2.
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Sunderland-A26-4/Short_Sunderland_III_A26_4_ex_ML733_Sydney_c_1944.jpg)
An Ansett Airline operated Short Sandringham operating from the same Rose Bay Flying Boat Base, Sydney decades after WW2.
(http://atsconsultancy.com.au/demo/Aeropidia_info/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SHORT-SANDRINGHAM.jpg)
-
The Sunderland made me remember a story I read from one of the pilots of those behemoths flying out of northern Australia- apparently as they were preparing for their takeoff run, the tail gunner started yelling to gun the engines RIGHT NOW- the cockpit luckily didn't ask questions and lumbered into the air immediately...
...and good thing they did, as a torpedo from what they believed was a Japanese midget-submarine streaked under where they'd been moments earlier.
Which would undoubtedly be one of the strangest kills on an aircraft ever.
-
A Sunderland! So that's the plane Lara Croft crashes into Tibet in Tomb Raider II. (Or at least it looks like it inspired what was in the game)
Thanks :) I always wondered.
-
Which would undoubtedly be one of the strangest kills on an aircraft ever.
Quite beats the Intruder that guided an LGB onto a flying Iraqi chopper
-
Quite beats the Intruder that guided an LGB onto a flying Iraqi chopper
That's hilarious.
-
That's hilarious.
Wait I'm sorry, it was an F-15 Strike Eagle
https://theaviationist.com/2016/02/14/f-15e-shot-down-iraqi-mi-24/
But at some point the bomb appeared on Chewie's display: it was angled nose high, then started down and penetrated through the rotors, and the scintillation of the rotors as they disintegrated was easily discerned in the LANTIRN pod.
The GBU-10 then entered into the cockpit of the helicopter, and while it was coming out of the bottom of the aircraft the fuse delay functioned. Then a tremendous explosion disintegrated the helicopter in a huge fireball.
-
Interesting bit to me was the difficulty the radar was having due to the rotors. Is/was that a common thing?
-
Interesting bit to me was the difficulty the radar was having due to the rotors. Is/was that a common thing?
The radar on an F-15 is often set to disregard targets that are moving away from the plan. After all, someone who is running away from you is pointing in the wrong direction to shoot you. This is a trivial filter using Doppler radar. When viewed from anything but straight above or below, some of the rotors will be moving away from you, and some will be moving toward you. In close enough proximity, that probably flummoxed the computer. Similar to how two planes in tight formation can appear like one plane. In this case, there was a target moving toward the plane at some 200+ mph, and an equal size target moving away at the same 200+ mph.
Assuming the rotor blades are fiberglass or some other composite, I suspect the radar was actually seeing the control arms, the pitch rotation joint, and all the other kibble on the rotor head, but INAE.
-
torpedos used to sink a flying boat. That would be very different. Would that count as a ship or a plane kill?
-
Ship kill because it is a "flying" boat. It would be an aircraft kill if it was a "sea" plane ;)
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-20/cathay-pacific-spells-name-wrong-on-own-plane/10285748 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-20/cathay-pacific-spells-name-wrong-on-own-plane/10285748) ;D
-
Ship kill because it is a "flying" boat. It would be an aircraft kill if it was a "sea" plane ;)
That makes sence
-
Ship kill because it is a "flying" boat. It would be an aircraft kill if it was a "sea" plane ;)
Didn't the USS Kitty Hawk have a kill marker for a submarine on her flank after a collision? I've found a 1984 NY Times article verifying the incident, but it doesn't mention the crew claiming it as a "kill."
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/22/world/soviet-sub-and-us-ship-collide.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/22/world/soviet-sub-and-us-ship-collide.html) One of these days I'll learn how to insert a link and have it appear as something other than the full URL....
-
make the 1st URL tab with URL= and then whatever your link is (all of that as one word inside the [] brackets), then put your desired text followed by the /URL in brackets. it is fairly easy, just counter intuitive.
like so (quote to see how i did it)
Soviet Sub and US Ship Collide (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/22/world/soviet-sub-and-us-ship-collide.html)
in question related to carriers, i've been trying to figure out what CATOBAR aircraft were around in the 90's and early 2000's for an alternate universe project of mine. especially stuff that was either fairly new or was still in recent enough production that you could have an updated model come out. i need a multi-role strike fighter that isn't a Super Hornet, basically. non-US is fine.. this is for a multinational group.
-
i need a multi-role strike fighter that isn't a Super Hornet, basically. non-US is fine.. this is for a multinational group.
Why not a Super Hornet?
Well then it's not a long list, you have:
US - F-18 Hornet, F-14 Tomcat
British - Harrier sorry, you said CATOBAR
French - Super Etendard, Rafale M (beginning 2000)
Russian - Su-33
-
Why not a Super Hornet?
Well then it's not a long list, you have:
US - F-18 Hornet, F-14 Tomcat
British - Harrier sorry, you said CATOBAR
French - Super Etendard, Rafale M (beginning 2000)
Russian - Su-33
A-7 Corsair II was retired in 1991 from the IS Navy. guess that would not work, not really a fighter...
A-4 Skyhawk is still technically being flown by the Brazilian navy last I heard (at least as of 2017), so it's served in some capacity with various powers for 60+ years...
Edit: what about the MiG-29K?
Ruger
-
make the 1st URL tab with URL= and then whatever your link is (all of that as one word inside the [] brackets), then put your desired text followed by the /URL in brackets. it is fairly easy, just counter intuitive.
like so (quote to see how i did it)
Soviet Sub and US Ship Collide (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/22/world/soviet-sub-and-us-ship-collide.html)
in question related to carriers, i've been trying to figure out what CATOBAR aircraft were around in the 90's and early 2000's for an alternate universe project of mine. especially stuff that was either fairly new or was still in recent enough production that you could have an updated model come out. i need a multi-role strike fighter that isn't a Super Hornet, basically. non-US is fine.. this is for a multinational group.
From the Easter Bloc, there is stuff like the Su-33. England only operates Harriers. If this is an AU, then the USN was only a few billion away from having a navalized Raptor (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=1551).
-
you see some of my problem. the AU i'm doing this for isn't entirely mine (actually expanding on an RPG's stuff) and the source has some aircraft that never existed in reality.. but which when looking at how the timeline shakes out, one of them would only really work as an alternate result to the programs that got the Super Hornet. only the plane in question is more of an a fighter/interceptor without much strike ability. i'm trying to fill in some backstory stuff, so trying to find something that can fill a strike role has been a tough choice when also trying to avoid using the stuff that isn't three decades old airframes in the late 90's early 2000's.
seriously tempted just to use the Rafale-M, since that would at least avoid the "all american all the time" problem.. kinda wish they'd made the carriers in this STOBAR. ah well.
hmm.. Harrier might be worth looking at.. VTOL ability has been shown to work off American Amphib's without a skijump, would probably work in this case.
-
If you're thinking VTOL, what about the YAK-141?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141)
-
you see some of my problem. the AU i'm doing this for isn't entirely mine (actually expanding on an RPG's stuff) and the source has some aircraft that never existed in reality.. but which when looking at how the timeline shakes out, one of them would only really work as an alternate result to the programs that got the Super Hornet. only the plane in question is more of an a fighter/interceptor without much strike ability. i'm trying to fill in some backstory stuff, so trying to find something that can fill a strike role has been a tough choice when also trying to avoid using the stuff that isn't three decades old airframes in the late 90's early 2000's.
seriously tempted just to use the Rafale-M, since that would at least avoid the "all american all the time" problem.. kinda wish they'd made the carriers in this STOBAR. ah well.
hmm.. Harrier might be worth looking at.. VTOL ability has been shown to work off American Amphib's without a skijump, would probably work in this case.
Well, I initially thought you've got some pretty tight parameters, but if you're looking at Harriers then its not so bad. The Harriers are old though the Harrier II Plus was still in production.
Looking at your other parameters, it does look like the Rafale-M would be your baby. Su-33, if Russian aircraft is in the running, maybe the Shenyang J-15 copy.
Talking about imaginary proposed aircraft, you could take the JAS-39C Gripen stats for a "naval Gripen".
-
The French operated F-8 Crusaders right up until they were replaced by Rafales
-
If the F-8 qualifies then how about an F-4 Phantom II? USMC were still operating them until 1992.
(http://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/70/F-4N_VMFA-531_CV-43_Apr80.jpg)
-
The Navy Gripen would still be built if someone wants it. The only one who might get that version is the Indian Navy. To replace the Mig 29s and the Tejas not working the way they want it to.
-
What about the Swedish made Saab 37 Viggen? Or the South African Atlas Cheetah?
TT
-
I suppose you might be able to navalize the J-37, but I doubt anyone ever even considered trying...
But if you look there's a number of late cold war designs that almost got produced that could be interesting. And didn't the F-111, Tornado and Eurofighter all have proposed naval versions?
-
I suppose you might be able to navalize the J-37, but I doubt anyone ever even considered trying...
But if you look there's a number of late cold war designs that almost got produced that could be interesting. And didn't the F-111, Tornado and Eurofighter all have proposed naval versions?
The navalised F-111 became the F-14
I'm not sure if there was a plan for a navalised Tornado but there was a land-based maritime strike version used by the RAF and Germany (can't remember if German Air Force or German Navy)
Eurofighter did have plans which can sort of be seen from the shared early origins with the Rafele
Not a multi-role fighter but the Blackburn Buccaneer survived to take part in the first Gulf War, as did the F-4 Phantom
-
Phantom is a decent choice.
Diving deeper into this could've-been rabbit-hole,
The French trailed a Jaguar-M(arine) variant
(http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/jaguar/images/jag-m-prototype.jpg)
vid here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avbIcbCG5Rs
(https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/jaguar-solo_1024.jpg)
Those over-wing Sidewinders are so cute.
The Brits could also have gone for Tornado Naval or Eurofighter Naval.
Or you might consider the German Alphajet, which unveiled a modernised carrier version in 2012
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyqJGfxJ/Capture.png)
-
But if you look there's a number of late cold war designs that almost got produced that could be interesting. And didn't the F-111, Tornado and Eurofighter all have proposed naval versions?
Nothing proposed about navalised F-111. Part of the original plan for the F-111 program. Seven prototype F-111Bs were built and even tested on a carrier before sanity prevailed (it was never going to be good in a dogfight and trying to land one on carrier in a storm at night would have been "interesting").
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/F-111B_CVA-43_approach_July1968.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/F-111B_fighters_over_Long_Island_c1965.jpg)
So they took the radar, the engines and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and put them in a smaller airframe and the F-14 Tomcat was born
-
Nothing proposed about navalised F-111. Part of the original plan for the F-111 program. Seven prototype F-111Bs were built and even tested on a carrier before sanity prevailed (it was never going to be good in a dogfight and trying to land one on carrier in a storm at night would have been "interesting").
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/F-111B_CVA-43_approach_July1968.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/F-111B_fighters_over_Long_Island_c1965.jpg)
So they took the radar, the engines and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and put them in a smaller airframe and the F-14 Tomcat was born
Yeah, it's a big bird, but it's only about 4 feet longer than a Tomcat. I imagine a major difference is lifting area. F-111B had about 655 ft^2 of wing. Once lifting body effects are added in, Tomcats had a tick over 1,000 ft^2.
-
how much bigger is the wingspread?
-
That's part of the problem, the F-111 actually had a foot less wingspan; it's got more surface area on its wings but the F-14 has a much better lifting body in general - and weighs 21,000 pounds less with a full load, and 25,000 less on MTOW. That's a lot of poundage to slam into a deck at a buck-fifty over and over again, especially with the wing loading differences.
-
F14 was a much fighter better plane then the f111. The limitations on the F111B mad it inferior to the F111A
-
Truth be told, the Tomcat wasn't an easy plane to plane on a carrier. Of the 632 Tomcats that were built for the Navy, no fewer than 144 of them were lost between December 30, 1970, and March 29, 2004. The majority of these accidents were the result of pilot error, particularly during carrier landings. It was poor at holding an accurate approach speed or glide slope angle and it tended to veer away from a heading. The jet also suffered from high pitch inertia, causing it to float in the final seconds prior to landing.
-
Or you might consider the German Alphajet, which unveiled a modernised carrier version in 2012
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyqJGfxJ/Capture.png)
no naval Alphajet in reality. a screencap from The Avengers hardly counts. ::)
(honestly not sure why they used alphajets for the helicarrier.. probably because they looked like the one AV-8B harrier we got a good look at on the deck and expected people to mistake them for harriers?)
-
no naval Alphajet in reality. a screencap from The Avengers hardly counts. ::)
(honestly not sure why they used alphajets for the helicarrier.. probably because they looked like the one AV-8B harrier we got a good look at on the deck and expected people to mistake them for harriers?)
I just can't pull one over you can I ::)
I don't think there were any Harriers. SHIELD's air wing appears to be F-35s and Alphajets. They're a nicely obscure choice, but IINM the first and foremost reason was because the props company had Alphajets on hand ;D
-
I just can't pull one over you can I ::)
I don't think there were any Harriers. SHIELD's air wing appears to be F-35s and Alphajets. They're a nicely obscure choice, but IINM the first and foremost reason was because the props company had Alphajets on hand ;D
there was a single harrier. Thor and hulk smash it up during their fight. supposedly it was a mockup leftover from True Lies.
(http://www.impdb.org/images/d/d7/Avengers2012AV-8B_4.jpg)
(http://www.impdb.org/images/e/ec/Avengers2012AV-8B_3.jpg)
harriers can also be seen on the flightdeck in a few shots. (top right) interestingly this shot pretty much has to be mostly CGI
(http://www.impdb.org/images/f/fd/Avengers2012Carrier_2.jpg)
-
Cool. Despite having watched the scene a dozen times over, I was too enthralled watching Thor and Hulk fight to register the busted Harrier.
First time I noticed the chopper on deck too.
-
The airwing of the Helicarrier was Quinn Jets, F35, Av8b, and Alpha Jets.
-
F14 was a much fighter better plane then the f111. The limitations on the F111B mad it inferior to the F111A
The F111A was never exactly awesome either. I thought it never quite hit the design speeds, even after 2 inlet redesigns. Granted that might also have been DoD demanding performance that wasn't possible at the time. John Clark talks a bit about that kind of thing in Ignition! The DoD's requirements for temperature range, storage life, weight, and engine performance were mutually contradictory.
-
It took us 10 years of development delays, fixing of structural problems related to the wing attach points, and the redesign of the F-111 engine intakes before we got the F-111C into service with the RAAF. The F-111C took the basic airframe from the F-111A, added the strengthened undercarriage from the F-111B and added longer wings to give it better tropical weather performance.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/RAAF_F-111_fuel_dump_and_burn_Williamtown_Gilbert.jpg)
-
Quite beats the Intruder that guided an LGB onto a flying Iraqi chopper
I remember THAT !!! I was just back from in-country when I heard about that from guys at base camp.
-
F-35Bs are sailing into harm's way.
"Marines are loading bombs onto the F-35B and dropping them over the desert as ground troops prep for combat missions during the Joint Strike Fighter's first-ever deployment to the Middle East.
About 4,500 Marines and sailors with the Essex Amphibious Ready Group and 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit are putting their combat skills to the test this month in the Horn of Africa. They're participating in a two-week-long Theater Amphibious Combat Rehearsal that includes everything from quick-reaction force drills, deck-landing qualifications, simulated recovery of downed pilots and aircraft, and counter-mine training."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/11/f-35b-preps-combat-1st-middle-east-deployment.html
-
F-35Bs are sailing into harm's way.
"Marines are loading bombs onto the F-35B and dropping them over the desert as ground troops prep for combat missions during the Joint Strike Fighter's first-ever deployment to the Middle East.
About 4,500 Marines and sailors with the Essex Amphibious Ready Group and 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit are putting their combat skills to the test this month in the Horn of Africa. They're participating in a two-week-long Theater Amphibious Combat Rehearsal that includes everything from quick-reaction force drills, deck-landing qualifications, simulated recovery of downed pilots and aircraft, and counter-mine training."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/11/f-35b-preps-combat-1st-middle-east-deployment.html
almost exactly 20 years after adoption, and it's finally being deployed.
-
aaaaand in other news, how does the Su-25's BRRRRT compare with the A-10's BRRRRT?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vk3RBVKf/27493633447_d844883138_o.jpg)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/d0cd7f713ad0e88580125a4480718526/tumblr_p3tq819QG21w636mro1_1280.jpg)
-
aaaaand in other news, how does the Su-25's BRRRRT compare with the A-10's BRRRRT?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vk3RBVKf/27493633447_d844883138_o.jpg)
A-10: GAU-8 electrically driven Gatling 30x173mm at ~4000rpm, 1,174 rounds in the drum
SU-25: Gsh-30-2 recoil operated twin barrel 30mm at ~1000rpm, 250 rounds in the drum.
from this video (https://youtu.be/7fX3t5bg7N4?t=58) of the slightly slower firing Gsh-30K version on an Mi-24P Hind, it sounds less like a BRRT and more a classic "Dakka-Dakka"
-
I read somewhere about East German pilots loading up their Su-22s down with a half-dozen 23mm gun pods. More dakka dakka I suppose
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/d0cd7f713ad0e88580125a4480718526/tumblr_p3tq819QG21w636mro1_1280.jpg)
a very expensive lawnmower?
-
I think that they might have taken a look at a AC-47 Spooky (aka "Puff, the Magic Dragon") and decided that they wanted to smoke some of that too (without inhaling)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/AC-47_gunship_-_one_Gatling_gun_points_out_the_cargo_door%2C_and_one_each_points_out_of_the_two_windows_forward_of_the_door.jpg)
-
(https://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac342/mike-black511/Hheadon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Cessna_A-37B_Dragonfly_68-68-10824_603d_Special_Operations_Squadron_1st_SOW_Hurlburt_Field_FL_May_1970.jpg/1200px-Cessna_A-37B_Dragonfly_68-68-10824_603d_Special_Operations_Squadron_1st_SOW_Hurlburt_Field_FL_May_1970.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zuYaKVcYLyM/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Sticking with the Vietnam-era CAS/mini-guns theme . . .
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/P05002.025/screen/4142732.JPG)
UH-1D Iroquois "Bushranger" gunship operated by the RAAF No. 9 Squadron. We did not have dedicated gunships like the Cobra, so we improvised a field modification to four Iroquois helicopters to turn them into gunships by adding 7 barrel 2.75 inch rocket launchers plus twin M-60 GPMG on either side, and a forward firing mini-gun on the right side of the helicopter.
-
So, a Ferret
-
Sticking with the Vietnam-era CAS/mini-guns theme . . .
I had just read about the Bushranger, nice to see a pic of one
-
So, a Ferret
Indeed! They're very close to 5 tons.
-
Indeed! They're very close to 5 tons.
Ferret with half the infantry bay replaced with an RL10, perhaps?
-
Sure... a 5-trooper squad could still have two machine guns as support weapons... :)
-
Ferret with half the infantry bay replaced with an RL10, perhaps?
Tactical operations VTOL bomber rule, just hang an RL10 off the bottom.
-
and now, presenting an aircraft that came in under-budget, with less than a decade of development, that worked exceedingly well in every role and conflict it was brought into without needing special provisions in the testing or special deployment rules above and beyond those of aircraft of a similar vintage.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/VNAF_F-5E_Tiger_II_and_A-1_Skyraider_-_Da_Nang_1973.jpg/800px-VNAF_F-5E_Tiger_II_and_A-1_Skyraider_-_Da_Nang_1973.jpg)
and the Skyraider's cute too.
-
It still amazes me that, for as modern in design as that airframe was, it first flew in 1959. And the G.91Y, my favorite light-attack plane (fantastic little thing) uses the same engine pack; you can make a whole airforce off a single source supplier!
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.91Y
(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4057/4527938499_8ed28cfac1_z.jpg)
-
Here is the Boeing/Saab T-X Trainer that will replace the T-38 Talon. Contract just rewarded to Boeing.
-
F-35B crashed in South Carolina on Friday. Pilot ejected safely.
-
F-35B crashed in South Carolina on Friday. Pilot ejected safely.
that's inevitable with mass-produced high performance aircraft. it's not that the design is unsafe, but that the role is going to statistically have a crash rate no matter how well produced or designed it is. Issues like pilot error, maintenance error, undetected manufacturing errors will happen to any airframe in the first few years of employment.
for example, the F-104(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Lockheed_XF-104_%28modified%29.jpg/1200px-Lockheed_XF-104_%28modified%29.jpg)
and the early F-16
(https://media.defense.gov/2004/Jun/01/2000591542/780/780/0/040528-F-1740G-004.JPG)
both had, in their first decade, a reputation as "Lawn Darts" because of a seemingly high crash rate as organizations got training ironed out regading their actual, versus planned, capabilities, maintenance requirements, and training requirements.
-
Big difference, though, is that the F-35 hasn't even started serious mass production. They're coming out in dribs and drabs from the factory; there's only about 300 of them across the board - far short of the 2600 for the Americans (let alone ROW), while production has been around 7 per month. That's expected to double soon, as the program pushes into higher build numbers with all the upgrades learned over the first batch of aircraft...but those first batches are going back to the factory for rebuilds up to the current standard soon.
It's the first full crash, but there've been a number of aircraft that suffered severe accidents (Class A Mishaps) with expensive rebuilds, most recently one that collapsed its nose gear on landing and tore up the nose of the aircraft. Granted, later aircraft shouldn't have these problems and overall numbers will go down, but the incident rate is concerning for as few aircraft as there are currently.
-
The incident rate is better than many other modern aircraft. The F-35 is being scrutinised much closer by media and critics (with all the ramifications that entails), that's all.
-
Big difference, though, is that the F-35 hasn't even started serious mass production. They're coming out in dribs and drabs from the factory; there's only about 300 of them across the board - far short of the 2600 for the Americans (let alone ROW), while production has been around 7 per month. That's expected to double soon, as the program pushes into higher build numbers with all the upgrades learned over the first batch of aircraft...but those first batches are going back to the factory for rebuilds up to the current standard soon.
It's the first full crash, but there've been a number of aircraft that suffered severe accidents (Class A Mishaps) with expensive rebuilds, most recently one that collapsed its nose gear on landing and tore up the nose of the aircraft. Granted, later aircraft shouldn't have these problems and overall numbers will go down, but the incident rate is concerning for as few aircraft as there are currently.
You ever work in manufacturing? your error rate on production goes down with quantity. On the 777F (Freighter) the first two had to be sold at a drastic mark-down to Air France, because of how many mistakes were made during the post-certification phase of the program (that is, stuff we had to rebuild or re-work when they pulled the flight test gear out). That's with an established airframe using established technologies.
F-35 uses protoype-level technologies and a novel airframe utterly unlike anything else in production before hand, of course low numbered airframes are going to have problems. and not just machine problems, but man problems too-there's really not enough for maintainers to have a best practices in keeping the planes running properly-because they're new, they're low-number airframes, and the institutional and organizational culture and knowledge to get the best out of them doesn't exist yet.
and "Yet" is the operative word.
Consider this; the F-111 A
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/An_air-to-air_left_front_view_of_an_F-111_aircraft_during_a_refueling_mission_over_the_North_Sea_DF-ST-89-03609_%28altered%29.jpg/300px-An_air-to-air_left_front_view_of_an_F-111_aircraft_during_a_refueling_mission_over_the_North_Sea_DF-ST-89-03609_%28altered%29.jpg)
was a death-trap with a 25% operational rate when USAF adopted it. Not 25% downtime, but 25% operational until around 1973.
by the time it was retired by the USAF, it was a reliable airplane with advanced avionics and a reasonably effective role. By the time the Australians retired theirs (F models) they were actually fairly good airplanes.
Aviation mechanics can get damn near anything to fly-if they have a body of knowledge on that anything of sufficient depth-even planes that shouldn't, like an airframe with a 35% built in instability...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Grumman-X29-InFlight.jpg/1200px-Grumman-X29-InFlight.jpg)
sure, there's been an accident, and anyone who's frequented this forum knows my opinion on the decision to continue with the JSF programme as it's been executed. But the planes are built, they're flying, so now? Now it's a matter of volume times time, building up the knowledge-warehouse and organizational cultures necessary to keep the F-35 from being an expensive hangar queen.
and that only happens with Lessons Learned in service. no matter how sadistic your testing programme is, only operation in the field can find the real flaws and provide the real data to provide real solutions. Reality is different from fiction, because reality doesn't have to warn you ahead of time.
-
The incident rate is better than many other modern aircraft. The F-35 is being scrutinised much closer by media and critics (with all the ramifications that entails), that's all.
Don't kid yourself, Kidd, there are serious issues w/ the F-35 program, if there weren't, we'd have had operational squadrons by 2005, both Britain and Canada wouldn't be fighting domestic challenges to de-adopt it, etc. etc.
but you're also right-any program can become a success if it's worked on hard enough by intelligent people. think of the scrutiny as 'holding the contractor's feet to the fire' instead of letting them bury test results (which has happened in the past with military procurements. See: F-111, M-2 Bradley, Sgt. York DIVAD gun system, etc.)
one crash is not a trend, and this one looks pretty much 'pilot error' which happens with new systems.
-
What concerns me the most about the program was the concurrency idea; start churning out planes that legitimately aren't ready, and use the first production runs that are in-service as your prototypes to work out the kinks, then go back and retroactively upgrade all those once you finally do. This also means that designs are changing not just from technical feedback but mission creep, meanwhile you're actively producing aircraft that will need to be remanufactured soon. In the past, it was a case of 'a few prototypes, then once all the bugs are worked out start mass production and don't worry about the prototypes' but...that's more a debate about manufacturing processes than aircraft in particular.
Glad the pilot survived, though. That's the number one thing.
I'll still agree the F-35 is probably the greatest strike aircraft on the planet, and I'd LOVE to see the EOTS applied to other aircraft as well, it's a magnificent system for situational awareness. Talk about playing dirty in a dogfight, now you have nowhere to hide...
-
Don't kid yourself, Kidd, there are serious issues w/ the F-35 program, if there weren't, we'd have had operational squadrons by 2005, both Britain and Canada wouldn't be fighting domestic challenges to de-adopt it, etc. etc.
but you're also right-any program can become a success if it's worked on hard enough by intelligent people. think of the scrutiny as 'holding the contractor's feet to the fire' instead of letting them bury test results
I quite agree with almost all of the above :thumbsup:
The important thing though is to recognise what is right and what is wrong, targeting the proper parts of the program which require corrective action, and not going at it willy-nilly with half-truths or exaggerations
The latter however is the way it goes nowadays. More interest in "shaping the narrative" for personal purposes than the absolute truth
What concerns me the most about the program was the concurrency idea; start churning out planes that legitimately aren't ready, and use the first production runs that are in-service as your prototypes to work out the kinks, then go back and retroactively upgrade all those once you finally do. This also means that designs are changing not just from technical feedback but mission creep, meanwhile you're actively producing aircraft that will need to be remanufactured soon. In the past, it was a case of 'a few prototypes, then once all the bugs are worked out start mass production and don't worry about the prototypes' but...that's more a debate about manufacturing processes than aircraft in particular.
It's nothing new.
-
Here is the Boeing/Saab T-X Trainer that will replace the T-38 Talon. Contract just rewarded to Boeing.
Good article here: https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/27/boeing-wins-t-x-trainer-competition/
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/27/boeing-wins-t-x-trainer-competition/)
No surprise as to the winner though. As I predicted earlier in the thread, Lockheed and Boeing were the only legitimate contenders once Northrop pulled out. Lockheed will be in the fast jet business for decades to come with the Lightning. Boeing wont be building Eagles and Hornets forever. This will keep them in the fast jet business 'till it's time for our 6th generation fighter.
-
The Marines have taken the F-35B into combat for the first time.
https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/28/marine-corps-marks-combat-debut-for-f-35b/
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/28/marine-corps-marks-combat-debut-for-f-35b/)
-
The Marines have taken the F-35B into combat for the first time.
https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/28/marine-corps-marks-combat-debut-for-f-35b/
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/28/marine-corps-marks-combat-debut-for-f-35b/)
The VMFA-211 Squadron Commander mentioned in the article was a fraternity brother of mine at Carnegie Mellon. His funeral was well attended by a number of folks that thought very highly of him. Nice touch VMFA-211.
https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-corps-camp-bastion-jsf/
-
Boeing wont be building Eagles and Hornets forever. This will keep them in the fast jet business 'till it's time for our 6th generation fighter.
Hilariously, it looks like a little baby F-18, it's so cute!
I wonder what Northrop's gonna do with their design; they're keeping it remarkably under wraps. Are they repurposing it for foreign sale, or gonna play it into the drone market perhaps?
-
Good article here: https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/27/boeing-wins-t-x-trainer-competition/
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/09/27/boeing-wins-t-x-trainer-competition/)
No surprise as to the winner though. As I predicted earlier in the thread, Lockheed and Boeing were the only legitimate contenders once Northrop pulled out. Lockheed will be in the fast jet business for decades to come with the Lightning. Boeing wont be building Eagles and Hornets forever. This will keep them in the fast jet business 'till it's time for our 6th generation fighter.
wonder how long it will be before the T-X gets a version meant for frontline use, to make up for how expensive the F-35 has become.
-
I doubt it; it's a little on the small side for any serious strike mission. Not that it wouldn't work, I just don't see the Americans using it. Export market, totally; compare it to the Hawk, Jaguar, and other stuff and it'd probably set a nice new modern bar.
-
wonder how long it will be before the T-X gets a version meant for frontline use, to make up for how expensive the F-35 has become.
In US/NATO service? Not ever. Frontline requirements are beyond what it can offer. I can think of some 3rd-world countries which might consider it, but its competitor the FA-50 has actually scored some sales and China is of course heavily promoting the JF-17 Thunder.
I'd love to see the specs of the Boeing T-X though, just to fantasise what could be done to turn it into a "light fighter" (or really, armed trainer).
Then there's also this from China, which flew its maiden official flight yesterday - the FTC-2000G, a purpose-built light fighter with touted specs similar to the FA-50. The marketing for this is the direct opposite of the FA-50, Hawk, et al. - a light fighter that can also be a trainer, rather than a trainer that can also be a light fighter.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjHmVp5P/1e7c5tik_china-ftc-2000g-combat-plane-twitter_625x300_29_Septemb.jpg)
-
looking at the wikipedia article and assuming the specs listed there are at least reasonably close to accurate..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_T-X
a light fighter version would be pretty close to a JAS-39 Gripen.. it is darn near the same size and weight, it just uses a less powerful engine. but the F414 on the Gripen is basically a souped up F404, which is what the Boeing-SAAB T-X is using.. and the early Gripens were using a F404 as well, it is just the JAS-39E/F "Gripen NG" that uses the F414..
-
I'm not certain if those specs are correct. If they are, it's way lighter than the JAS-39C Gripen which clocks in at 14000kg fully loaded.
-
From the latest shiny new toy to old faithful and reliable:
(https://media.truelocal.com.au/5/9/5DF495E5-6DC3-4C48-AF11-40F2AC704D59/tiger-moth-adventure-flights-byron-by-tyagarah-amusement-parks-over-water-7158-938x704.jpg)
-
I'm not certain if those specs are correct. If they are, it's way lighter than the JAS-39C Gripen which clocks in at 14000kg fully loaded.
Dryweight is pretty close. The T-X being lighter fully loaded is only logical due the fact the T-X lacks all the weapons hardpoints and such. Something that would be added for a light fighter version.
Especially since a light fighter would probably be using a more power version of the engine, like the F414.
-
AH64 Apache winter certification
-
Just saw this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Focke_Wulf_Fw189.jpg)
Focke-Wulf Fw 189
TT
-
Where is Micheal Jackson when we need someone to should "UHU!"
-
Indian Air Force AH-64
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WcwYLZHTs58/W12tGKESusI/AAAAAAABmOU/7gkzr0Ek3H8M2MKNmQ0U5-nvHo6LaulfACLcBGAs/s640/DjQP0S3XcAA7WpE.jpg)
Looks pretty good in gray.
-
Night Ops aboard the Queen Elizabeth.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/10/44145823215_a58516b95c_o-1024x683.jpg)
-
i'll give the F-35 this.. it sure is pretty for an overpriced Lemon
-
It will be interesting to see if they are still considered lemons when they get to Block 50/60 builds.
RAAF No.2 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit) are sticking with the traditional tail flash with the tiger's head in the centre for their F-35As:
(https://i2.wp.com/australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20170303raaf8185068_0001.jpg)
Although it is much easier to make out the detail when it is not low-vis (this is the hi-vis version that is on the F/A-18 Hornets):
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Hornet/DC_3A21_34b.jpg)
Whereas RAAF No. 3 Squadron has some pretty tail art for their F-35As:
(https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/180326-F-BI157-203.jpg)
I like the low-vis Australian flag at the top of the tail.
-
Night Ops aboard the Queen Elizabeth.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/10/44145823215_a58516b95c_o-1024x683.jpg)
Hey! They got the decks fixed?
-
Great photo of the night ops.
-
@Feenix - I didn't know the RAAF have 2 squadrons operating the F-35s already.
Besides Indonesia's Army Air Corps, I'm not sure where else one would find the AH-64E Apache and Mi-35P Hind-F operating side by side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8P92JDG6/42069079_596195607477699_2700736574480167947_n.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgSkWZMh/AH-64_E-_Apache-_Guardian-_Puspenerbad.png)
-
@Feenix - I didn't know the RAAF have 2 squadrons operating the F-35s already.
It is smoke and mirrors. The first two (serial numbers A35-001 and A35-002) are the training aircraft so they are allocated to 2OCU (and remain in the US as part of the "international training pool" for the next few years). The next batch of 8 F-35As be on the roster of 3SQN to be the first online operational F-35 squadron for the RAAF. So technically we have two squadrons operating the F-35s already but in reality at the moment we have about 1/6 of an operational conversion unit and 3SQN are scheduled to have 8 F-35s by the end of this year (2 of which will be based in Aus, the remaining 6 will initially stay in the US).
-
Besides Indonesia's Army Air Corps, I'm not sure where else one would find the AH-64E Apache and Mi-35P Hind-F operating side by side.
And not standardizing on payloads either; check out the rocket pods and ATGMs on each one. I'd at least try to avoid having two completely different national logistics chains myself...
-
Quality info, thanks! :thumbsup:
And not standardizing on payloads either; check out the rocket pods and ATGMs on each one. I'd at least try to avoid having two completely different national logistics chains myself...
Rightly or wrongly (I make no judgements), the logic at play here is - as a 3rd world/NAM country, play off the 1st and 2nd worlds' rivalries to buy whatever either will offer
There are obvious pros and cons to this approach
-
Quality info, thanks! :thumbsup:
No problems, from what I have found via google the delivery schedule to the RAAF is:
- two airframes (2014) – AU-1 and -2 to the training squadron in the US
- eight airframes (2018) – six airframes to the training squadron in the US, and two airframes to arrive in Australia end of 2018
- eight airframes (2019) – direct to Australia
- fifteen airframes (2020) – direct to Australia
- fifteen airframes (2021) – direct to Australia
- fifteen airframes (2022) – direct to Australia
- nine airframes (2023) – direct to Australia
With all 72 airframes are planned to be in Australia by end of 2023.
So my first post could be incorrect, the 6 airframes being delivered to the training squadron in the US may go to 2OCU with only 2 airframes to 3SQN and then another 8 airframes to 3SQN in 2019.
-
With all 72 airframes are planned to be in Australia by end of 2023.
For this day and age, that's a savage IOC schedule!
So reading up on the RAAF's F-35 plan, that's 72 F-35As across one OCU and three frontline squadrons. I'm guessing that's 18 aircraft per squadron?
Meanwhile 1SQN uses up the last of the Super Hornets
And 6SQN operates 12 11 Growlers
-
I would describe it as "ambitious" . . .
18 aircraft per a squadron which give us 12 on the official ORBAT plus + 6 attrition spares per a squadron. These replace the classic Hornets that were operated by 2OCU, 3SQN, 75SQN and 77 SQN since the mid-1980s.
1SQN will operate the 12 Super Hornets and 6SQN will operate the 11 Growlers that were delivered in 2009-2010. Hopefully they will find the money to replace the lost Growler to get 6SQN back up to full strength but the longer term grand plan is to replace the Super Hornets and possibly the Growlers with more F-35s.
-
Wonder who gets the Bugs.
-
In the words of South Park "Blame Canada" (http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/12/minister-payne-confirms-raaf-classic-hornet-sale-to-canada/) 8)
-
Wonder who gets the Bugs.
18 of them going to Canada as Feenix74's link explains. There's talk Canada might want the rest, but nothing in the works right now
-
In the words of South Park "Blame Canada" (http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/12/minister-payne-confirms-raaf-classic-hornet-sale-to-canada/) 8)
because it worked SO well with the Voodoo
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e8/c0/3b/e8c03b161a7075c49b706ec2acea7bda.jpg)
-
Just saw this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Focke_Wulf_Fw189.jpg)
Focke-Wulf Fw 189
TT
Paul Allen has one of those under long term restoration to fly...
-
No kidding? That's awesome!
-
18 of them going to Canada as Feenix74's link explains. There's talk Canada might want the rest, but nothing in the works right now
and another 7 airframes to cannibalise for spares
I dunno about the rest though. To cut a long story short, the other airframes are gonna have only a literal handful of years of life left in them by the time the RAAF's F-35 fleet is ready, then it'll be time for a SLEP - that is, if any will have been developed for the F-18 "classic". And the end result is still limited as it's never going to catch up to a Super Hornet, bear in mind.
-
because it worked SO well with the Voodoo
Who do? ;)
-
and another 7 airframes to cannibalise for spares
I dunno about the rest though. To cut a long story short, the other airframes are gonna have only a literal handful of years of life left in them by the time the RAAF's F-35 fleet is ready, then it'll be time for a SLEP - that is, if any will have been developed for the F-18 "classic". And the end result is still limited as it's never going to catch up to a Super Hornet, bear in mind.
The RAAF Classic Hornets are old but they are well maintained. They have had various SLEP work done to them (mainly wings, main undercarriage and fuel tanks) to carry them through to their planned replacement by the F-35 but the really big SLEP program that was planned in the late-2000s was canned after doing about 10 airframes due to complexity and cost issues. This was known as the Hornet Centre Barrel Replacement program and involve completely stripping down the airframe, sending the centre barrel of the airframe over Canada where the three main elements of the centre barrel were replaced. Centre barrel was then returned to Aus, everything reinstalled and aircraft re-commissioned for active service. There was also a long running HUG (Hornet Upgrade) program during the noughties to upgrade the radar, avionics, EW and software.
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/f16-euro-fighter-destroyed-fire-explosion-belgium-friendly-fire-florennes-a8584451.html
Meanwhile in Belgium, BRAAAAAAAAAP. Apparently someone accidentally triggered a parked F-16's gun, shells hitting another aircraft and setting it and a nearby -16 merrily ablaze. One a/c totally destroyed, the other one suffering 'collateral damage' from the fire. Apparently the one was fueled up and was about to go for a patrol flight when it got hit, hence the destruction.
Kind of a surprise, really, unless the firing aircraft was being readied itself or had just flown. Onboard power to run the gun, plus the fact it was actually loaded, I'd imagine both of these would not normally be the case...
-
Ouch, somebody is going to get invited to morning tea with the CO, bring your hat, not your coffee cup.
-
Maxim 5
Close air support and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart.
Apparently getting closer doesn't always help...
-
That F-16 goof is almost as bad as this one with the F-22s
https://www.wearethemighty.com/news/hurricane-michael-f-22?utm_campaign=News&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=News&utm_content=hurricane-michael-f-22&fbclid=IwAR1dhZhcSjgRlVc6KVGKBlvGtNHC6mE3EUKQ1KlUOjhEuLcWkiBJb6ymaZo
-
The F-22s weren't a goof. Leaving them was a command decision where there wasn't much choice.
-
Agree with Cache, the only goof was to locate Tyndall AFB in hurricane territory.
It was a part of the reasoning behind why our RAAF Base Tindal is located at Katherine in Northern Territory, which is 200 km south of Darwin and thus far enough inland that it is protected from tropical cyclones. RAAF Base Tindal is home base to 75SQN and RAAF Base Darwin effectively becomes to the Forward Operating Base where they can deploy to in the event of "interesting times".
-
Considering those aircraft were downchecked for a host of various parts requirements, everything from engines to avionics. They weren't flying, and it's not like there was a hell of a lot of warning - you get a few days at most for any kind of major storm. If parts won't be here in time, guess what?
-
Considering those aircraft were downchecked for a host of various parts requirements, everything from engines to avionics. They weren't flying, and it's not like there was a hell of a lot of warning - you get a few days at most for any kind of major storm. If parts won't be here in time, guess what?
As I recall, that was the reason for the F-16s destroyed when Mt. Pinatubo erupted many years ago. If they can't fly away from the pyroclastic cloud and mountains of ash and mud heading their way, well, they're write-offs.
-
They're also saying that the hangars the aircraft were stored in held up to the storm, so the 17 aircraft in question aren't completely destroyed. Very likely they're in various states of damage and disrepair, but LockMart engineers are already assessing the damage to figure out what to do with them.
-
Having been involved in the recovery of an airfield following a tropical cyclone and reading between the lines of the news report. Generally, the hangars will take the brunt of the damage but it depends on whether any of the cladding of the hangars got peeled off by the wind. If you lose cladding then expect significant damage to the aircraft inside. If you did not lose cladding then you still get individual bits of debris that get punched through the cladding by the wind which can still result in damage to the aircraft inside.
I would be surprised if all 17 aircraft are a complete write-off. More likely there would be a few economic write-offs (ie can be fixed but at huge expense) and the rest will have varying levels of damage that may keep some out of action for extended time periods.
-
And let's not forget that of those writeoffs, there's going to be previous "damage" to them that led to their being left behind. A Raptor that gets a hell of a hole through the wing might not be a writeoff, but if its avionics aren't installed and the engines were already pulled for replacement? At that point it might be easier to call it destroyed since it was halfway there before the hurricane hit, rather than repair both the hurricane damage AND all the previous wear, tear, and replacements.
Granted I have no idea what state those birds were in prior to the hurricane, so I'm just rolling off the top here.
(https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/YF-23-photo.jpg)
Meanwhile, I'm bummed that Japan nixed the idea of YF-23 variants for their indig stealth fighter. The better stealth characteristics and focus of an interceptor would have made a wonderful niche for the Black Widow II. I guess they couldn't make it transform into a giant robot properly, so they're gonna make their own.
-
Heck I'm STILL bummed that the YF-23 was never adopted as the Gen 5 fighter. That's what a proper 21st century interceptor needs to look like.
-
Heck I'm STILL bummed that the YF-23 was never adopted as the Gen 5 fighter. That's what a proper 21st century interceptor needs to look like.
This...so much this...
Just because the team for that fighter didn't take it to the same extreme as the YF-22's team in a test or two, perception became it wasn't as capable...
Ruger
-
Well, in fairness it showed LockMart was definitely playing with some matured technology rather than a true testbed, and the -22 did have the TV engines that the -23 didn't. The Air Force was looking for a fighter, and wanted the best furball performance, so it went with the better dogfighting capability. The -23 was always more of an interceptor; faster and stealthier but not as apt in the turning fight. (Granted, some of these 'better' statistics are very fine differences between them, but still)
Were it a perfect world we'd have adapted both platforms and given any threat axis a hi-hi approach to dealing with air combat, because you want different threat envelopes to cover things - otherwise, if someone comes up with a way to reliably defeat your single-frame air combat unit, you've got nothing else in the tool shed. (See also: the Zero problem)
I wonder how the Widow IIs would have handled ground attack?
-
I wonder how the Widow IIs would have handled ground attack?
Bigger weapon bays than the 22, so probably quite well.
And officially, it was to be called the Gray Ghost..
-
Was the namer a fan of Batman: The Animated Series?
-
Some angles views of the F-23 is one of the best looking aircraft ever.
The other angles of the F-23 is one of the ugliest planes ever, looking form the back and below is one of them to me.
Example attachhed
-
Meanwhile, I'm bummed that Japan nixed the idea of YF-23 variants for their indig stealth fighter. The better stealth characteristics and focus of an interceptor would have made a wonderful niche for the Black Widow II. I guess they couldn't make it transform into a giant robot properly, so they're gonna make their own.
sure they could. they just couldn't get the DNI system working right. (http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossplus/yf-21.htm)
(http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossplus/yf-21/yf-21-fighter.gif)
-
Well, in fairness it showed LockMart was definitely playing with some matured technology rather than a true testbed, and the -22 did have the TV engines that the -23 didn't. The Air Force was looking for a fighter, and wanted the best furball performance, so it went with the better dogfighting capability. The -23 was always more of an interceptor; faster and stealthier but not as apt in the turning fight. (Granted, some of these 'better' statistics are very fine differences between them, but still)
Were it a perfect world we'd have adapted both platforms and given any threat axis a hi-hi approach to dealing with air combat, because you want different threat envelopes to cover things - otherwise, if someone comes up with a way to reliably defeat your single-frame air combat unit, you've got nothing else in the tool shed. (See also: the Zero problem)
I wonder how the Widow IIs would have handled ground attack?
I imagine a lot of the folks who made the decision were trained up by folks who flew F-4s in Vietnam. They were told from the beginning of their careers that a pure interceptor that can't get into dust up with what ever it catches is a Bad Ideatm. That said, a pair of Raptors with a Widow flying high cover is a kinda scary idea. Especially in 10 years when all the interconnected doodads from F-35 get back ported.
-
Flying Stuka in 2021
Hopefully
https://flyingheritage.org/Explore/The-Collection/Germany/Junkers-Ju-87-R-4-Stuka.aspx
-
Wallpaper worthy
(https://i.postimg.cc/j55dnFWH/jKVpFGq.jpg)
-
Indeed, very nice! :thumbsup:
-
So very nice to see.
-
Notice the leading edge slats out? Hard to fly that slow.
-
Shot of the Chengdu J-20A's full missile load.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/11/J-20A-weapons-PL-10-PL-15-Zhuhai-2018-XXL-1-1024x576.jpg)
Interestingly, it seems that the doors for the cheek weapons bays can seemingly be opened, the weapons extended, and the doors closed again.
-
They're working on a 6-missile bay.
-
Shot of the Chengdu J-20A's full missile load.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/11/J-20A-weapons-PL-10-PL-15-Zhuhai-2018-XXL-1-1024x576.jpg)
Interestingly, it seems that the doors for the cheek weapons bays can seemingly be opened, the weapons extended, and the doors closed again.
I'm a bit curious what that buys them. The first thought is keeping the RCS low, but once you do something that breaks up your stealth, you're not stealthy anymore.
Plus they need tracks to hold the missile when it's external and doors to cover those tracks. All those seams add up to degrade the RCS even when the bird is in a "clean" configuration.
-
I'm a bit curious what that buys them. The first thought is keeping the RCS low, but once you do something that breaks up your stealth, you're not stealthy anymore.
Plus they need tracks to hold the missile when it's external and doors to cover those tracks. All those seams add up to degrade the RCS even when the bird is in a "clean" configuration.
I presume you mean the two side bays. This gif demonstrates how it works:
(https://i.imgur.com/15cwLzw.gif)
Why is it important to have those 3 yellow bits outside even with bay doors shut? Cause that's where the tracking sensors are - it allows the missile to acquire lock while still inside the bay with doors unopened, something the F-22 can't do for its AIM-9Xs. An F-22 would have to open its bay, THEN wait for the missile seeker to acquire lock.
This requirement only applies to short-ranged IR homing missiles like the PL-10 here, or US AIM-9X. That's why the main bay doesn't have a similar setup.
-
I'd seen something suggesting that the original plan for the configuration was to set up four 'deep' inside, and two more on each door in a setup similar to the Hellfire carriage on the RAH-66 Comanche
lemon helicopter from about 20 years ago. Not sure if that was ever really feasible or not, but it's intriguing anyway.
-
I'm a bit curious what that buys them. The first thought is keeping the RCS low, but once you do something that breaks up your stealth, you're not stealthy anymore.
Plus they need tracks to hold the missile when it's external and doors to cover those tracks. All those seams add up to degrade the RCS even when the bird is in a "clean" configuration.
An external missile in that position is still a stealthier than a big open bay. Since it isn't the most stealthy to start, it needs all the help it can get.
It also gives it better aerodynamics than an open bay, useful in a dogfight.
-
If you've got the heat seekers out, odds are good, you're expecting to enter a knife fight. Having the doors closed keeps the aerodynamics a lot cleaner. Probably easier on the bay door mechanisms too if you aren't keeping them open while pulling 7 g's at 400 kts
-
I assume that when the stealthy fighters are in visual dogfighting range, being at full stealth is probably less of a consideration than being able to out manoeuvre the enemy aircraft they are dogfighting with, being able to achieve a target lock and shoot them down. This appears on the surface (pun intended) to be a reasonable engineering solution to assist in achieving that result.
-
the F-22 was supposed to deal with the issue by being equipped with a version of the AIM-9 that could be fed targeting data before launch and didn't require being deployed out of the doors to lock on. then the IRST got cut from the design, forcing it to rely on radar for the initial lock (which greatly reduces the performance, not to mention the stealth)
and then AIM-9X proved too expensive to manufacture in sufficient quantities anyway, and stockpiles only just started to catch up.
i suspect there were some engineers at Lockheed that on learning of the Chinese solution, went "why the hell didn't we think of that?"
-
Technically it's an IRST of sorts, just...side-looking rather than nose-mounted. And more integrated into just the missile, I suppose, than a full system for the pilot.
-
I guess it's like the A-10 solution to the low light vision requirement, use the missile seeker
I wonder if the IRIS-T could be retrofitted to the F-22 if they wanted...
Also, missiles other than the AIM-9 do exist, for example the ASRAAM
-
Technically it's an IRST of sorts, just...side-looking rather than nose-mounted. And more integrated into just the missile, I suppose, than a full system for the pilot.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was 30-40 degrees of off boresight capability for those heat seekers. Otherwise feeding them data from a side looking sensor doesn't seem logical.
-
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jSH5VfkxfZg/W2b2qdzknII/AAAAAAABS9o/ifUHwC70aqMi9HP4R0f_7aDKdOG2fZJXACLcBGAs/s1600/RAAF%2BSuper%2BHornets%2Bflying%2Bin%2Ba%2Bformation%2Bwith%2BIAF%2BSu30MKI%2BFlankers%2Bduring%2BEx%2BPitch%2BBlack%2B18%2B1.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7IjqKDEsMGv3mtxisrQx2Je7leOkRBncNqsOUtl9rLf8uNETUMA)
Indian Su-30MKI and an Australian F/A-18F Super Hornet flying in formation during EX Pitch Black 2018.
-
Coming up on Part Four of this thread soon, I nominate the Double Ugly as the next thread's mascot.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/f4-phantom-phil-rispin.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i-jSxdRTNmc/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Shiny 8)
I second that nomination.
(http://www.angelfire.com/extreme/raafphantoms/Pherry1.jpg)
-
In Russia, Bomber blow you out of ski!
(http://www.fillmoregazette.com/files/imagecache/970wide/files/soviet-bomber-1.jpg)
No Idea what plane this... but o.O!
TT
-
(http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/images/firebirds2.jpg)
TIL a RAF Phantom accidentally shot down a RAF Tornado in Germany in 1982. While the rest of the army was off fighting in the Falklands, the British Army Of the Rhine was busy holding off the Reds (who themselves were in the middle of the Panjshir Offensive in Afghanistan). During this time of heightened readiness, exercise flights were carried out with aircraft fully armed and unfortunately a practice attack on a Jaguar resulted in a live launch and the aircraft was downed, although the lucky pilot lived to tell the tale.
In classic British fashion the incident was memorialised on the guilty Phantom to the end of that particular airframe's life:
(https://defenceoftherealm.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/jag.jpg)
-
In Russia, Bomber blow you out of ski!
(http://www.fillmoregazette.com/files/imagecache/970wide/files/soviet-bomber-1.jpg)
No Idea what plane this... but o.O!
TT
That's got to be some artist messing around. I mean, it's got an upside-down battleship turret!
-
According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7)
It's a real plane... thought I do agree.. maybe photoshopski'd too much?
In Mother Russia, it's cold so we drink fermented potato water!!
TT
-
sadly that photoshopped image (the result of a person's CGI recreation of the K-7 being heavily altered) is far more common and much better quality than that of any of the actual photographs (and the original recreation is either no longer available or really hard to find). as a result lots of places use the photoshopped image when talking about the real life K-7.
-
It is fairly obvious that it is a CGI image. Look at the surroundings of the plane and the people.
-
sure, but people notice "oh it is CGI' and don't figure out "wait, that plane shouldn't be covered with guns"
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Kalinin-K7/IMAGES/Kalinin-K-7-Pre-WWII-Russian-Giant-Bomber-Transport-Front.jpg)
-
Well... According to Wikipedia:
In bomber configuration it would have been armed with 8 x 20mm autocannons, 8 x 7.62mm machine guns and up to 9,600 kg (21,200 lb) of bombs.
That's not battleship guns, but still pretty close to "covered in guns". :D
-
I'd rather have something nice looking for the new thread's mascot, so let's go F4U.
(http://getwallpapers.com/wallpaper/full/7/a/2/513279.jpg)
-
(http://www.ausairpower.net/MONINO/Tupolev-Tu-4-Bull-PCropper-5S.jpg)
Needs more engines to be a mascot. I present the Tupolev Tu-4 'Bull'. ^-^
-
(http://www.ausairpower.net/MONINO/Tupolev-Tu-4-Bull-PCropper-5S.jpg)
Needs more engines to be a mascot. I present the Tupolev Tu-4 'Bull'. ^-^
I second the Bull; love the story behind that thing!
-
Mascots are supposed to be adorable. A-4 Skyhawk!
-
I'd rather have something nice looking for the new thread's mascot, so let's go F4U.
(http://getwallpapers.com/wallpaper/full/7/a/2/513279.jpg)
The F4U was the darling of US aviation in the Pacific, at least according to all the Discovery Channel stuff I saw in the 80s. When did the Wildcat replace it in popular knowledge?
-
The F4U was the darling of US aviation in the Pacific, at least according to all the Discovery Channel stuff I saw in the 80s. When did the Wildcat replace it in popular knowledge?
The Wildcat? ???
Maybe you're thinking the Hellcat?
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/F6F_warbirds_tw.jpg)
Probably because it was built in much larger numbers, and had the best kill ratio of any WWII fighter.
-
The Hellcat was also better at landing on carriers than the Corsair and produced more Aces than any other American fighter.
-
The Wildcat? ???
Maybe you're thinking the Hellcat?
Probably because it was built in much larger numbers, and had the best kill ratio of any WWII fighter.
Yes, Hellcat. oops.
The Hellcat was also better at landing on carriers than the Corsair and produced more Aces than any other American fighter.
You're both right, but I remember a period where the Corsair seemed to get more attention in documentaries.
Like how documentaries have changed the narrative on stealth planes. Back in the 80's it was "black magic," then in the early to mid 90s it was all about the RAM and in the late 90s, its all about the shape, and now its mostly the shape, with RAM in a few spots.
I know the physics haven't changed and how it was discussed among those with any kind of technical background has always been more consistent. I'm talking about the Discovery Channel/Popular Mechanics level of detail.
-
I second the Bull; love the story behind that thing!
We could call the thread Know Bull. :D
-
I thought grimlock1 was just making a joke about the Wildcat's designation: F4F
-
What about rallying behind an Etendard 4?
-
Howzabout the JN-4
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Flying_jenny_cropped.jpg)
-
Présenter le chéri de la Force de Frappe... le Mirage IV!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCJ0FTnn/Capture.png)
-
Going to be real quick to get off the ground. Kinda like a DHC-4 Caribou: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw43sKkI1Ww (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw43sKkI1Ww)
-
The Caribou is one of the few aircraft that could fly backwards (into a strong headwind).
-
My dad served in the RAAF on those things, and he can also attest to the flying backwards in the right wind conditions ability of the Caribou, and also about how noisy the bastard was.
-
Let's not go forgetting the D4Y Judy (which I always loved the look of).
(https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/2/7/3/1022273-15059-26-pristine.jpg)
-
Love the F-4 just amazing how that thing flew with all that drag but it was one of the best fighters ever.
-
Makes you wonder what it could do with modern engines, doesn't it.
-
Makes you wonder what it could do with modern engines, doesn't it.
About that...
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Douglas-X3/IMAGES/Douglas-X3-Stiletto%20on%20runway.jpg)
The Douglas X-3 was an experiment into making an extremely aerodynamic frame go really, really fast (like, Mach 2+). Problem was, the engines it was designed for didn't pan out, and the replacements made for an extremely underpowered aircraft- it couldn't break Mach 1 in a dive, and it needed an extremely long runway for operations. The experiment ended after a mercifully brief career... just in time for the J79 engines used in the F-4 to come along.
Cram a couple of those smoky, powerful bastards in the X-3, and oh what might have been... for what it's worth, a SINGLE J79 was plenty enough to power the similar-shaped F-104 Starfighter to Mach 2 without any trouble, so two of them would have been inefficient, but impressive. Alas, we'll never know.
-
Makes you wonder what it could do with modern engines, doesn't it.
considering that the F-4X Super Phantom (using J79's, minorly modified airframe, and water injection cooling) was able to hit mach3.3+, who knows?
though most engines since that one have focused more on efficiency rather than sheer power, so a more modern engine might not improve flight performance or speed any, but certainly would have improved the range.
-
Well, I'd say power's still a major call, considering the J79 pushed 12,000lbs dry and 18,000 in reheat. Meanwhile the F-119-PW-100s are almost the same size (6 inches shorter, 8 inches higher diameter, and 50 kilos heavier) and punch double that, "greater than" 35,000 pounds in afterburner.
While I mentioned before the general difficulty in re-engining a fighter because of envelope, balance, and placement issues...just imagine a Super Phantom with those onboard. Then again you'd have to totally change the intake geometry, wing shape, and ruin the gorgeous look of the F-4 Phantom.
...probably have to add in re-entry tiles as well...
-
Not just a matter of redesigning intakes. Many times the limitations of a fighters speed isn't that the engine doesn't have the push, its that the airframes cannot handle that push. I recall reading that the F16 can go faster, but the canopy starts to become a little distorted. I don't know if the phantom would be able to handle Mach 3.
-
Make it out of steel then. Or go the whole hog and use titanium, make the Super Foxbat a reality!
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Y5kRJz1/mig25ek.jpg)
-
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c946a03596ebd28798b6a/t/599f05106a496367f326855a/1503593833177/USAF+Heritage+Flight.jpg?format=1500w)
-
That is one awesome Heritage Flight.
-
Hence why I shared :thumbsup:
-
S-3 Tracker under restoration and being displayed at the USS Hornet Museum in Alameda, CA.
-
Well, I'd say power's still a major call, considering the J79 pushed 12,000lbs dry and 18,000 in reheat. Meanwhile the F-119-PW-100s are almost the same size (6 inches shorter, 8 inches higher diameter, and 50 kilos heavier) and punch double that, "greater than" 35,000 pounds in afterburner.
While I mentioned before the general difficulty in re-engining a fighter because of envelope, balance, and placement issues...just imagine a Super Phantom with those onboard. Then again you'd have to totally change the intake geometry, wing shape, and ruin the gorgeous look of the F-4 Phantom.
...probably have to add in re-entry tiles as well...
Instead of pushing the top end, I just want you to envision one thing;
Supercruising in an F-4 phantom. That is, in non-reheat power, cruising at the Phantom's 'reheat' speed.
-
With black smoke, though?
-
With black smoke, though?
Of course, that's how you get stealthy F-4 Phantoms. too much smoke to spot them!
-
Of course, that's how you get stealthy F-4 Phantoms. too much smoke to spot them!
what is this 'stealth' of which you speak? The point of the double-ugly is NOT to sneak up and drop a couple JDAMs on a babymilk factory in Sudan, but to stun the enemy into inaction with the sudden spike of fear he feels seeing those black contrails coming, knowing he can't do anything to stop them because they fly on sheer brutality and meanness.
-
One more for the 4-theme, if someone wants to start that soon?
-
what is this 'stealth' of which you speak? The point of the double-ugly is NOT to sneak up and drop a couple JDAMs on a babymilk factory in Sudan, but to stun the enemy into inaction with the sudden spike of fear he feels seeing those black contrails coming, knowing he can't do anything to stop them because they fly on sheer brutality and meanness.
I find your argument compelling ...
-
One more for the 4-theme, if someone wants to start that soon?
That reminds me, I wonder how the modification/restoration work on the one of those they've got down in Galveston...
-
That reminds me, I wonder how the modification/restoration work on the one of those they've got down in Galveston...
OH! I love the Privateer too!
Whats this about a restoration/modification? Modified to do what?
-
Wished this was real...
(https://www.aerosociety.com/media/9591/megafortress.jpg?width=500&height=322.22222222222223)
Wonder if it could still be a EB-52 Megafortess from Dale Brown's Flight of the Old Dog
TT
-
OH! I love the Privateer too!
Whats this about a restoration/modification? Modified to do what?
The museum down there has a Liberator they're slowly restoring/turning into a Privateer.
-
Wished this was real...
(https://www.aerosociety.com/media/9591/megafortress.jpg?width=500&height=322.22222222222223)
Wonder if it could still be a EB-52 Megafortess from Dale Brown's Flight of the Old Dog
TT
I haven't thought about the ol' EB-52 Megafortress in a long time! My first exposure to his work was Battle Born, so the EB-1 is always what I think of first.
-
I was told that a New Engine option is on the way for the 35th time for the B-52.
-
(https://www.airteamimages.com/pics/245/245168_800.jpg)
This thread needed some Rafale.
-
Wow. I was struck by the beefy nose gear strut and went off to compare with the F-18 and F-16. The F-16 is stood up on toothpicks.
-
Looks like the naval version?
-
Looks like the naval version?
That's what I was comparing. I'd never really looked before and didn't realize the F-16 was so inky dinky.
-
That's what I was comparing. I'd never really looked before and didn't realize the F-16 was so inky dinky.
I saw something years ago that interviewed an engineer involved with turning the YF-17 in the F/A-18. One of the headaches was beefing up that spindly Air Force style landing gear to be carrier worthy, and making it still fit in the same hole. The engineer's facial expression was saying "FML!"
-
(https://www.airteamimages.com/pics/245/245168_800.jpg)
This thread needed some Rafale.
Is that some kind of EOTS on the bottom lip of the intake?
-
I built a model of one, I found it fascinating among the other bombers.
The museum down there has a Liberator they're slowly restoring/turning into a Privateer.
-
That's not the Old Dog?
Wished this was real...
(https://www.aerosociety.com/media/9591/megafortress.jpg?width=500&height=322.22222222222223)
Wonder if it could still be a EB-52 Megafortess from Dale Brown's Flight of the Old Dog
TT
-
Mind you the, the original premise of "Make a B-52 remotely stealthy" is kind of ludicrous. At best, you'd get the RCS down from "Costco" to maybe "Walmart"
-
Mind you the, the original premise of "Make a B-52 remotely stealthy" is kind of ludicrous. At best, you'd get the RCS down from "Costco" to maybe "Walmart"
I think that has to do with reducing the range at which radar can pick it up, rather than making it harder to see.
-
that is the idea of stealth in general yes. because "reduce the range of a radar can pick it up" is "making it harder to see" and the goal of stealth. extreme stealth like the F-117 just reduces the range it can be picked up to such short ranges it can overfly radar nearly at will without being noticed.
but in this case you are talking it being a huge return no matter what. it just isn't shaped right to be stealthy. it is always going to be blindingly obvious on a radar screen, no matter how much radar absorbing paint you layer on it.
but Flight of the Old Dog came out in 1987, and obviously was written a bit earlier. the F-117 and its insights into how stealth worked wouldn't be declassified until 1988 and the actual revelations wouldn't percolate into the public mind regarding stealth and shapes wouldn't really come until 1991 and the Gulf War, where its use was widely publicized.
so the author wouldn't have known. and the previous decades of stealth focus was on radar absorbing paints (used extensively on things like the U-2 for example, bring its signature down from "freight train" down to "doubledecker bus") or experimentation with radar transparent materials like certain woods and plastics, to reduce the amount of stuff reflecting the radar back (turns out engines are huge reflectors of radar, and easily show up bigger on radar than airplanes themselves if they aren't buried inside the body of the plane.)
-
Guys, we lock this thread because it has reached the limit. I hope to see a Part Quatre soon.