Aviation Pictures Part Trois

[Weirdo]

Like the skids on glider wings:



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...

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Daryk]

I just want to know how on earth you're supposed to land a Vandal. :o

Vertically, of course...  ^-^

[JadeHellbringer]

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.



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.)

[Weirdo]

Can other modern fighters pull that trick?

[JadeHellbringer]

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.

[Kidd]

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.

[Cannonshop]

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.)

[Feenix74]

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.

[Cannonshop]

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.

[Kidd]

anyway...

how dated is the F-15 Strike Eagle? is it worth upgrading? if so, what with?

[JadeHellbringer]

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.

[Ghost0402]

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.

[worktroll]

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.

[Fat Guy]

Qatar's F-15QA may be the ultimate fighter on the planet not named Raptor.



Good article: https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2018/03/22/qatari-eagles-set-to-be-most-advanced-to-date/

[Kidd]

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.

[Ghost0402]

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.

[JadeHellbringer]

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. ;) )

[Ghost0402]

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.

[ANS Kamas P81]

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.

[Bren]

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.

[Cannonshop]

A major difference in this respect being that the F-35 is allowed to be sold to other nations.

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 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.

[Cannonshop]

which isn't to say we should even consider going back to the old SPAD....



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:

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..


or for a more modern look, with an aircraft a little closer to current technologies:

[Cannonshop]

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;



and had a sortie rate of 3/day when more 'Advanced' platforms could barely manage 1/3days.

[Sartris]

I typed 'weird aircraft' into google images and this was in the first ~10 images

[Weirdo]

I've probably seen weirder, but we're all airplane buffs, it's hard to peg our weird-shit-o-meters.

[worktroll]

Well, the Coanda effect is a thing ...





And while Burt Rutan wasn't around in WW2 ...



No-one told the British ...

[Weirdo]

... it's hard to peg our weird-shit-o-meters.

Well, the Coanda effect is a thing ...

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?

[worktroll]

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 ...

[DoctorMonkey]

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...