Aviation Pictures: How expensive can a fifth generation thread be?

[Bedwyr]

To start this off I give you the Lippisch Aerodyne.

[Kidd]

Oh already. Oh well.

I was going to go for the Mig-28.

[Fat Guy]

One of these things is not like the others...

[ANS Kamas P81]

Regards the 'Tie Fighter Window' on the X-37, that's most likely the heaviest heat shielding.  Remember your nose-up attitude on re-entry, for the space shuttle about 30 degrees positive pitch so with a similar belly-shield aerodyne you'd have a similar profile.  That point of the 'window' is where you're hitting the atmosphere first, so it's going to have the highest heating friction.

[truetanker]

Is that " A why there's NO Star Wars in space. ", thing?

TT

[chanman]

A-5 Vigilante. Poops nukes.

[Colt Ward]

Those look a bit big compared to the other fighters on the carrier . . . twin engine?  What is funny is it looks like a MiG-25 a bit . . . especially curious when I read that the Vigilante was supposed to be a twin tail airplane early in its design phase. 

[Daryk]

Yeah, those A-5 wings don't fold enough to really fit on the carrier...

Bedwyr, what the heck IS that thing you started the thread with??  ???

[hoosierhick]

A-5 Vigilante. Poops nukes.

And sometimes they didn't do when they launched from the carrier!

[Daryk]

That crazy parking arrangement on the flight deck is exactly what prompted my comment...  :P

[Colt Ward]

From what I read, it was too big for some of the older carriers, I mean that picture is from the Enterprise!

[I am Belch II]

Oh already. Oh well.

I was going to go for the Mig-28.

I will take your Mig-28 and go one better with a Mig-29

[Daryk]

Those aren't MiG-29s...  ???

[Sabelkatten]

Some other movie?

[Sharpnel]

And the first one is not a MiG-28

[glitterboy2098]

Some other movie?

Iron Eagle II. and not the worst offense in that film either.

and you have to admit, at least Top Gun gave their proxy fighter an impossible designation, leaving you wondering how that world compared to ours. the Iron Eagle example was just outright dumb.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Was Iron Eagle the movie where the teenage pilot shot a tank with a Sidewinder missile while his jet was on the ground?

[Charlie 6]

Going more assault support less anti-air warfare.

[Ghost0402]

Was Iron Eagle the movie where the teenage pilot shot a tank with a Sidewinder missile while his jet was on the ground?

I think so

[Liam's Ghost]

Was Iron Eagle the movie where the teenage pilot shot a tank with a Sidewinder missile while his jet was on the ground?

Pretty sure he used a Maverick missile in that scene, but yes it was while grounded.

[Daryk]

Going more assault support less anti-air warfare.

Sweet shot!  :thumbsup:

[David CGB]

Going more assault support less anti-air warfare.

great pic

[Colt Ward]

Was Iron Eagle the movie where the teenage pilot shot a tank with a Sidewinder missile while his jet was on the ground?

Iron Eagle I . . . II was MORE over the top 80s goodness.

I do wonder if a Sidewinder would pick up a M1A1's turbine . . . I mean, its a bit silly . . . but I LOVED the ability in the old Jane's ATF to take a B-2, load in some HARMs and hit patrolling fighters b/c I could detect their radar.

[worktroll]

Those look a bit big compared to the other fighters on the carrier . . . twin engine?  What is funny is it looks like a MiG-25 a bit . . . especially curious when I read that the Vigilante was supposed to be a twin tail airplane early in its design phase. 

Well, the A-5 was a carrier-based, long-range, supersonic nuclear bomber, not a fighter. A definite case of "Chancellor, we are for the big!".

And while the A-5 and Mig-25 were rough contemporaries (Vigilante '58, Foxbat '64), it's more about covergent evolution - having a highish-mach airframe dictates a pointy nose, and the top-forward intakes with intake ramps are features of many other such airplanes, from the F-15 to Concorde and the Tu-22. Heck, the Valkyrie has them, but on their sides!

Shoulder-mounted wings allowed for ordnance or fuel to be carried under the wings - the Vigilante originally carried a droptank under each wing, while the Foxbat mounted four of those telephone-pole Acrids. Also allows keeping the landing gear shorter, unlike the Hustler.

Now the Vigilante was operational before the Foxbat took first flight, but the Foxbat was the child of a long evolutionary process starting with the Ye-150 and Ye-152 (think Mig-21 on ALL THE STEROIDS), and the Ye-155 (direct ancestor of the Foxbat) had things like wingtip fuel tanks and canards, which the A-5 never had. Plus IMHO the Foxbat is a beefy, brutal design built around those massive and tempermental Tumansky engines, while the Vigilante was a long, lean design based around the weapons "bay" located between the pair of J-79s.

But then, like Buran, knowing something can be done one way does concentrate the mind, without the need for detailed espionage.

And to round off this adventure for a plane born around the same time as myself, I give you the NR-349 - a Vigilante upgraded to three J-79s, and meant to carry 6 Phoenix missiles as a dash interceptor, replacing the cancelled XF-108 Rapier (for which the Phoenixes were originally developed. The Tomcat just got the radar crammed in  & the missiles slung). Note the over-wing intakes feeding the 3rd engine. I can't help but wonder if the NR-349 was meant to emulate the Foxbat ;)

[Weirdo]

Murphy's Dice...that thing probably has only two throttle settings: "Landing" and "Hold My Beer". :o

[Colt Ward]

Oh, I get convergent evolution . . . which is especially poignant since the MiG would have been tasked IMO to go after such speedy nuke tossers, if you are going to catch something that fast you have to be faster.  Personally i just have the 'Walker' class submarine example frequently in the back of my mind when comparing US & USSR equipment.

[Garrand]

MiG-25s first entered service in 1970. A-5s were out of service starting 1963 & converted to the recon role...

Damon.

[Cannonshop]

MiG-25s first entered service in 1970. A-5s were out of service starting 1963 & converted to the recon role...

Damon.

I think he was referencing when design work and prototyping began, Garrand, not when it became a front-liner or when the soviets began cranking out the export model.

[glitterboy2098]

to be fair, the A-5 only started service in '58, so the soviet union probably expected them to be in service a lot longer than they did. and the Mig-25's first flight was in 1964, so it was clearly in development while the A-5 was new. given that there were a number of other high speed craft at the time (the SR-71's, the F-104's, the B-58, etc) that the soviet union's existing stuff would struggle to handle effectively, the MiG-25 was probably inevitable whether the A-5 stuck around or not. at the time it looked like "speed is life" was going to be the watchword for air warfare in the future. that SAM advancements would force a shift towards terrain following tactics wasn't exactly foreseen yet.

[Garrand]

The point I was making is that the MiG-25 probably wouldn't be popping A-5s in a WWIII type scenario. If the RA-5s were going to be used, probably in a post-strike evaluation role.

Allegedly the MiG-25 was designed specifically to intercept the XB-70 Valkyrie IIRC. Of course an aircraft with that performance margin would be useful against a host of other aircraft, though I have doubts about it dogfighting with F-104s (or really with anything...). The MiG-25 achieved its impressive performance by sacrificing just about everything else, & being very, very much the specialist in the straight-line, missile armed interceptor role.

Damon.

Damon.