(http://www.airvectors.net/avtu160_3.jpg)
I am going to go with one of the original fourth generation fighters, the F-14 Tomcat.I was wondering who would go with that theme.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VQ3-M1Ay--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/j3ban44vxdfebjsmwipu.jpg)
This is the only flying pic I care for!Very true.
(http://turcopolier.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c72e153ef01b8d15c89e5970c-800wi)
TT
And an F4U with 20mm cannon instead of the .50s.Well, the 20s were generally considered superior firepower and were in high demand, nearly every Brit fighter absolutely had to have Hispano 20s no matter what they had originally been armed with. So I'd go with that.
Which would you rather have, six .50s or four 20s? All missions, standardized package for either ground support or air supremacy.
Didn't the 20mms have problems in the Spitfires because they were installed upside down or something?They didn't have a recocking mechanism, so if the gun misfired or something then it was done. Meanwhile the Americans built all theirs with oversize chambers and had constant malfunctions because of it, and never bothered to fix it despite being shown the difference between Brit 20s and American ones.
If more is better then I choose a Bristol Beaufighter, four 20 mm Hispano Mk III cannons and six .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns.Not to mention the rocket racks.
If more is better then I choose a Bristol Beaufighter, four 20 mm Hispano Mk III cannons and six .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns.
I counter with the P-61 Black Widow...four 20 mm cannons and four .50 caliber machine guns...and rockets under the wings...Beau had rockets too.
The Black Widow gets my vote.
(https://goo.gl/images/V7Fbk2)
EDIT: But won't display for some reason. Here's the link: https://goo.gl/images/V7Fbk2
I counter with the P-61 Black Widow...four 20 mm cannons and four .50 caliber machine guns...and rockets under the wings...Nevermind. I'm not going to argue with a fighter carrying that many guns.
Ruger
Aviation Pictures: the Fourth Hurricane (mark)
(http://www.modelarovo.cz/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/raf064-1500x994.jpg)
They didn't have a recocking mechanism, so if the gun misfired or something then it was done. Meanwhile the Americans built all theirs with oversize chambers and had constant malfunctions because of it, and never bothered to fix it despite being shown the difference between Brit 20s and American ones.
That's a consolation prize. The real objective in intercepting bombers is to stop them from, you know, bombing you.Killing bombers, whether or not they drop their payloads today, means they won't be dropping any more payloads at all. I can accept taking one more day of bombing to eliminate the threat permanently.
12-15 rounds per gun wasn't exactly the most suitable for air combat.
Catching a bomber after it's already dropped isn't terribly helpful.
It sure is. The Luftwaffe's aircraft replacement capabilities weren't very good, and even more importantly, they don't get a crew back to pilot the replacement bomber if they're KIA or POWsdoubly effective in the Luftwaffe's case since they didn't rotate skilled pilots and crews off the frontline to training positions very often. so not only are you removing an existing crew from service, the one that replaces them isn't going to be nearly as skilled at doing their job. making shooting down the next wave of bombers that much easier.
It sure is. The Luftwaffe's aircraft replacement capabilities weren't very good, and even more importantly, they don't get a crew back to pilot the replacement bomber if they're KIA or POWs
That's a consolation prize. The real objective in intercepting bombers is to stop them from, you know, bombing you.Shooting down bombers after they have dropped their payload today, is equivalent to intercepting them before they drop the payload tomorrow.
Which helps you less if that bomber just took out a factory that was vital to England's war efforts. If Germany loses its bombers but manages to inflict crippling damage to England's military readiness in the process, that's a net victory for Germany.Bombing at the time wasn't so effective that it could achieve war-winning results in less than 10 missions. It took RAF Bomber Command 30 missions (including the highly specialist and highly effective Dam Busters raids) just to deal German production heavy losses... far from killing it entirely. There was no real knockout blow, bombing had to be sustained to be effective.
I think the .303 Brownings only had enough ammo for 12-15 bursts anyway. It's the destructiveness to the bombers that's important. You can poke a LOT of rifle-calibre holes in an airframe before it's done. That's rather less true for 40mm shells.True, and the Luftwaffe did have some few successes using their 37mm Bordkanones on bomber streams, but the problem is accuracy - unless they were Hans-Joachim Marseille or Erich Hartmann, pilots generally needed those long bursts to either walk the rounds on target or have the target fly through the stream. Can't do that with single-shot weapons.
True, and the Luftwaffe did have some few successes using their 37mm Bordkanones on bomber streams, but the problem is accuracy - unless they were Hans-Joachim Marseille or Erich Hartmann, pilots generally needed those long bursts to either walk the rounds on target or have the target fly through the stream. Can't do that with single-shot weapons.
Yeah, there's a reason why when you read through fighter pilot accounts, they tend to value situational awareness, marksmanship, and aggressiveness far above any flying talent. See the enemy first, hit them first, and press the attack home.I should think so! These qualities are practically what sets fighter pilots apart from any other flyer.
On bo both the day and night interceptor role though, had the fighter versions of the Mosquito been available a year or two sooner, they may have been able to take a truly terrifying toll, especially as night intruders, attacking bombers still forming up for their night attacks over their airfields.What, during the Battle of Britain? In daytime Mosquitos shouldn't tangle with German bombers over the Continent as they'd still be escorted by fighters. And at night, it was lack of radar that left the RAF effectively helpless at night.
Phantom fans, it seems the Hellenic Air Force still flies 'em. Did not know that.Fly them high and fly them low...damn low.
I should think so! These qualities are practically what sets fighter pilots apart from any other flyer.
What, during the Battle of Britain? In daytime Mosquitos shouldn't tangle with German bombers over the Continent as they'd still be escorted by fighters. And at night, it was lack of radar that left the RAF effectively helpless at night.
They wouldn't be dogfighting in the daytime. They'd be doing what the Me 262s did against the 8th AF B-17s and B-24s. I think you underestimate how much faster the Mosquito was than other planes in the 1940-43 timeframe.I'm not that familiar with the magnitude of the Mosquito's speed advantage, no, though I know it was fast enough to give Goering kittens. Wasn't the Fw190 quite fast as well?
During the Battle of Britain/early blitz though, they were using much lower performance converted bombers (A-20 Havocs, Bristol Blenheims) in the role. The switch to Beaufighters and Mosquitos seems limited more by airframe availability (Beaufighters first flew in 1939 and entered service in 1940.And they did terribly. Barely made a dent in German night bombers. Yes though Beaus were available at the time, it was in extremely limited numbers, I think only 1 squadron or so flew them.
I'm not that familiar with the magnitude of the Mosquito's speed advantage, no, though I know it was fast enough to give Goering kittens. Wasn't the Fw190 quite fast as well?
Zoom and boom while outrunning escorts does sound fun.
And they did terribly. Barely made a dent in German night bombers. Yes though Beaus were available at the time, it was in extremely limited numbers, I think only 1 squadron or so flew them.
(an interesting question would be how the Westland Whirlwinds fared with their armament, but there were so few of them), so I admit it's kind of a moot point.I love the Whirlwinds. AFAIK they didn't have much problem, being mounted in the nose and presumably right way up. I don't think the Hurricanes had an issue either, it was the early Spits with basically retrofitted Hispanos that had that problem.
Ah, fair enough. It's hard to keep track of the timeline of electronic developments in WW2 since they moved so quicklyIndeed. IIRC the Brits didn't have much (if any) night fighter radar during the Blitz.
Fly them high and fly them low...damn low.
I was just wondering this week if having the Vickers S-equipped Hurricanes available for the Blitz would have provided measurably better results against the Luftwaffe's bombers. Might slow them down enough to have trouble catching Ju-88s flying light after dropping, but it'd be able to catch the He111s without trouble and punch far larger holes than .303s
We use 747s to fight forest fires er in the USA.
Airbus next generation fighter concept:Nose & cockpit look like off an F-14, wings and tail look kind of like the YF-32
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/738/84738/1735009_main.jpg)
That picture looks like it's right out of the '80s...
Nose & cockpit look like off an F-14, wings and tail look kind of like the YF-32
They're there, it's just that you canardly see them at that angle.*groan*
Some nice aggressor Vipers:That paint job is messing with my sense of scale. Between that and the high resolution, I felt like I was looking at models for a minute.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/11/AK-Aggressor-VanderMeulen-_hhRV80920_1-1024x681.jpg)
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/160805-F-YM181-005.jpg)
It looks like a F22 and a Mirage offspring. We will see how far it goes and what it will look like in the end after 10 years of design and testing before a roll out of the first model.Current understanding of aerodynamics and stealth will tend to push designs to look similar.
Current understanding of aerodynamics and stealth will tend to push designs to look similar.
That is the problem, all the planes will look alike. Airliners will not have stealth but will mostly be twin engine planes with engines on pods under the wings, not a lot of change in the design also.Until some day a manufacturer finds a way to make a blended body wing design into a passenger/cargo jet. One that meets all the speed/size/efficiency requirements.
Current understanding of aerodynamics and stealth will tend to push designs to look similar.
Air works the same everywhere...
Until some day a manufacturer finds a way to make a blended body wing design into a passenger/cargo jet. One that meets all the speed/size/efficiency requirements.From what I understand that's doable for cargo, but there's no way legally to do it as for passengers - the wingstubes arrangement means you get a lot of emergency exits and quick access to them. Getting everyone out of a lifting body design takes quite a bit longer than 45 seconds.
Bit of a followup to the Hurricane Michael v. F-22 discussion last thread.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a24750155/f-22-hurricane-michael-repaired/
All 17 aircraft have been restored to flight and are back with their squadrons doing what fighter jets do, no Raptors lost at all.
F-22 stronk.
Skis on a plane with rockets… It's even more awesome than you think! :DIs it more awesome than this stopping almost on the dime? https://i.imgur.com/1DVV3q2.mp4
That's pretty awesome, but that thing can't have much of a payload...more or less the same payload as a normal fully fueled up C-130. the ski's are there because they can't exactly lay down tarmac over the glacial ice, and wheels don't work well in the snow and ice. they operate fully fueled even though they don't need the range, because they have to keep the engine going during unloading.. if they turn them off the engines will cool down and you'd have to warm them up again before you can fire them up.. something the antarctic bases largely are not equipped to do.
Is it more awesome than this stopping almost on the dime? https://i.imgur.com/1DVV3q2.mp4
A C-130 can carry a decent load of 6 pallets.The purpose of the LC-130 is "domestic flights" ie transporting supplies from McMurdo inland to Amundsen-Scott where the big birds are unable to operate and the skis are necessary
If it is not enough then it is possible to operate a C-17 Globemaster III or a C-5 Galaxy into the ice runway at McMurdo Station in Antartica.
That puddle jumper doesn't look big enough for one pallet, much less six.Instead of playing the pronoun game, could you specify which aircraft exactly you are talking about?
The one HobbesHurburt linked (https://i.imgur.com/1DVV3q2.mp4)...I don't know what model it is, but planes used for these purpose are called Bush Planes.
I don't know what its designation is.
Airbus next generation fighter concept:
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/738/84738/1735009_main.jpg)
Supposedly the old Swordfish landed much the same way- the arrestor wires were less for stopping the plane as keeping it from stumbling back into the air after touching down, the joke went. ;D
(http://www.historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Swordfish.jpg)
IIRC a fully loaded Stringbag had a top speed of 85pmh...Are you sure about that? Mk 1's heaviest load is the torpedo at 1,670 pounds and her speed with that load is 143mph maximum at 5,000 feet (1,450 meters).
Are you sure about that? Mk 1's heaviest load is the torpedo at 1,670 pounds and her speed with that load is 143mph maximum at 5,000 feet (1,450 meters).
The gun turrets weren't set up to turn that slowly- they were built to shoot at faster-moving aircraft so tended to heavily over-correct when attempting to aim.Actually the truth was that it was dark, and on Bismarck only, she received TWO different models of the 105mm mounts so the Fire Control couldn't coordinate them effectively.
Well I've posted it before, but I have a soft spot for the Westland Whirlwind - by all accounts a potential monster that died stillborn, and the first Brit to mount the HS.20s - four of them, in the nose.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PL7292/The-Westland-Whirlwind-01.jpg)
Not to mention the rocket racks.
Thanks for the clarification.
Well, depending on wind conditions, little guys like that can even do a VTOL-like stop right there, think I've seen a clip like that.
Well I've posted it before, but I have a soft spot for the Westland Whirlwind - by all accounts a potential monster that died stillborn ...
First ugly Warthog I've ever seen...No wonder, it's not a warthog, it's an anteater :P
First ugly Warthog I've ever seen...That... looks familiar for some reason.
That is a ulgy A-10. The 2-seat A-10B looked pretty bad also.
I actually like that two seater...
Ruger
Minus points for not having a gun turret for the wizzo
Cobra la la la la la la la!
(http://s3.crackedcdn.com/blogimages/2008/11/rattler.jpg)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91tEo13tVPL._SX679_.jpg)I like the one that shot water and resembled the YF-23 Black Widow. :P
Tis better!
TT
Well there's something you don't see every day.Here's an article about the capability of the 747 to carry a 5th engine. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23227/virgin-orbits-rocket-launching-jumbo-jet-reminds-us-a-747-can-lug-a-5th-engine-under-its-wings
From what I recall (through a drug and flu induced haze of purple swirly stuff) the 707 was also built with a fifth mount for ferry ops as well.
A photo of the "Flying Pancake's" angry offspring the XF5U-1 Flying Pancake. Couldn't find a color photo of that plane doing its job.Where were its guns mounted?
Where were its guns mounted?(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Vought_XF5U-1_line_drawings.png)
It was a contributing forefather to stealth planes, wasn't it?
It was a contributing forefather to stealth planes, wasn't it?More like lifting bodies. For contributing forefather to stealth lanes, you look to Ho 229 and such.
One other thing that that video didn't mention was a difference in doctrine between the Japanese and American air forces. American doctrine pulled experienced pilots back off the front lines after a few months and put them into training duty so they could teach new pilots what they'd learned in combat. The Japanese kept their pilots flying combat duty, so new pilots weren't getting the advantage of being trained by someone who'd actually fought in the battles they were expected to be going into.Didn't that video talked about that? That the pilots who survived the battles and returned, taught the new recruits their experience in USN?
Yes, it actually flew.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-4XX4m-0Ok/UQlfxNSTd8I/AAAAAAAAR_U/5XTfgSy3MnM/s1600/0_9f009_d8e19337_orig.jpg)
The Mi-12 'Homer" would have taken the crown had it ever gone into production.Slap some real wings with four jet engines and it likely would have made a pretty decent military transport plane.
The Fulcrum and Flanker provide scale.
The Spruce Goose was originally designed to counter the shipping losses to Uboats by creating a gigantic fleet of gigantic transport planes. Though by mid 1943 this became irrelevant which probably caused development to loose its urgency. Now I do wonder how things might have shaped up differently if developed as a High speed WIGE? Instead of the 10-20days it took a liberty boat it might be only 1-2 days. Though a liberty boat only carried about 11,000 tones and I think a 747 cargo carries only about 600 tones max.I practice it was a WIGE. I read an article about it some time ago. Apparently the engine power wasn't enough to keep it airborne without ground effect!
The Spruce Goose was originally designed to counter the shipping losses to Uboats by creating a gigantic fleet of gigantic transport planes. Though by mid 1943 this became irrelevant which probably caused development to loose its urgency. Now I do wonder how things might have shaped up differently if developed as a High speed WIGE? Instead of the 10-20days it took a liberty boat it might be only 1-2 days. Though a liberty boat only carried about 11,000 tones and I think a 747 cargo carries only about 600 tones max.
A WIGE is an airplane. It's an airplane that's built with undersized wings because it's it's only supposed to fly so low that the ground effect (essentially air trapped between the ground and the wings) provides enough lift.There we go...gimme 500 of 'em
Or in the case of the Spruce Goose, an underpowered aircraft that can't get up to high enough speed to lift above WIGE flight.
Wasn't the Spruce Goose more akin to a WIGE in its effect, it couldn't fly very high and really its hull and wings acted like lifting bodies.
Wasn't the Spruce Goose more akin to a WIGE in its effect, it couldn't fly very high and really its hull and wings acted like lifting bodies.quite beautiful aircraft
And if you want some weird, big but beautiful lady of the skies the Saunders Roe Princess has to be up there.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Saro_Princess_G-ALUN_Farnborough_1953.jpg)
quite beautiful aircraft
Most definitely! 105 passengers in luxury accomodation. The only way to fly. Ah, but for the uncompleted Saro Duchess ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/1c/28/b71c281f510600296c14d5199df61d37.jpg)
The fact that there were a LOT of people with airfield-building experience, people with airplane building experience, and people who'd gotten used to flying in planes, destroyed the utility of the long-distance passenger seaplane.(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/destroyermen/images/5/57/Consolidated-pby-catalina-maritime-patrol-bomber-flying-boat-drawing.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141209233910) something about the Cat always get me.
But, like zeppelins, they still tug on our subconcious ...
I'm not sure. I've heard it claimed that it could have flown higher but the test flight it was on was so short that it didn't have time to try doing so.
So, just a freak of the wind or something? Or perhaps bad data, considering the relative imprecision of instruments at the time?
The conclusion was staggering- in that the computer determined it couldn't have made the hop at all. And yet, it did.
The idea that 'we dont know how a bumblebee can fly' thing is a myth, BTW. We know very well how it's able to fly. We've known for decades. It sticks around because it's anti-science bullcrap used to 'prove' scientists dont know what they're talking about.Fascinating. I didn't know about this myth to start with.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/
Also, mechanics of bumblebees flight were not exactly a top priority for scientific community.:-) I suspect that a few entomologists might take issue with that statement :-)
:-) I suspect that a few entomologists might take issue with that statement :-)
Not that I care. I mean it isn't like they can train bullet ants to attack on command.... Can they?
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/destroyermen/images/5/57/Consolidated-pby-catalina-maritime-patrol-bomber-flying-boat-drawing.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141209233910) something about the Cat always get me.
I don't think I've ever seen a seaplane with jet engines before.
Most definitely! 105 passengers in luxury accomodation. The only way to fly. Ah, but for the uncompleted Saro Duchess ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/1c/28/b71c281f510600296c14d5199df61d37.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner_Number_4
Can you imagine being in the wingtips of that thing while it banked?In fairness, imagine that VIEW.
And the award for ballsiest whirlybird driver of the year goes to...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce9PISHcq4Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce9PISHcq4Y)
And the award for ballsiest whirlybird driver of the year goes to...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce9PISHcq4Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce9PISHcq4Y)
Top Gun gave usthe wrong idea, from what I can tell fast jet drivers are quite conservative and close to being engineering nerds... it is the A-Team that got helicopter pilots right. Crazy the lot of them.
I know that despite all of the RAF-bashing banter my friends with RN and Army backgrounds throw around, everyone loves the RAF Chinook pilots for getting them out of hairy situations.
as callsigns go, it could be worse.
Funfact: Colin "Obi Two" McGregor, brother of Ewan McGregor, was a Tornado pilot
Out over Hawaii"...what is?"
Out over Hawaii
"...what is?"
-Radar.
Is the US really going to sell the F-35 to Japan? or for that matter the RAF/RN FAA (given they did the initial demonstration of harbour attacks at Taranto)?
...I don't see the relevance, but incidentally, yes, the JASDF and RAF are the biggest F-35 partners in terms of orders, at 147 and 138 aircraft each.
Is the US really going to sell the F-35 to Japan? or for that matter the RAF/RN FAA (given they did the initial demonstration of harbour attacks at Taranto)?
It's a Pearl Harbor reference but never mind, attempts at humour on the internet often fail :-[it's also a fail hard because US has been selling military hardware to Japan since Postwar Reconstruction.
How about the planet Eden then?
(http://img22.xooimage.com/files/c/f/5/yf-21-fighter-f28e9a.gif)
How about the planet EdenEden ripped off the design from Earth. ^-^ (YF-23 was first.)
I loved the aeroelastic control surfaces (https://youtu.be/NSkhkX-MmmE?t=90)during the startup checklist:-)
After the AHC, I decided to take her up high and do a supersonic MACH run, and by “high” I mean “where never lark nor even eagle flew”; but not much higher, a foot or two maybe. I mean, we weren’t up there high-fiving Jesus like we do in the Raptor, but it was respectable. It only took me the width of the Gulf of Mexico to get the thing turned around while above the Mach.
In all fairness so did I, but going by the Wikipedia the F-22's three sizes* are 43,340-64,840-83,500 while the F-4 runs a svelte 30,328-41,500-61,795 and the B-17 a surprisingly plump 36,135-54,000-65,500. The Raptor and Phantom are actually just about the same length as a B-17, which is an amazing factoid to me - 63 feet or so for the jets, vs 74 feet for the bomber...and yet the latter gets ten people crammed in it while there's barely room for one in the former two. Meanwhile the Liberator was a stubby thing at only 67 feet long...After working a crew that restored an F-4 for static display, let me say; that is a bloody big wing to sand and prep!
*empty-loaded-MTOW
Basically ProtoMech Pilot right there. Hell this whole startup sequence could basically be a protomech's start up one.Protomech or Spectral Omnis did occur to me as I was watching the clip but I was more interested in the control surfaces and the preflight.
According to the news report linked in that video, two of the crew members died in the crash.
And that's a pretty horrific crash.
Looking at the weather, I have to wonder why they were even flying...My thoughts exactly. Extremely poor visibility and it didn't look lie the strip had even been cleared. Somebody needs to get severely punished for this.
That thing hit hard. :o It's a wonder it only broke in one spot, would have thought the gear would have gone through the wings seeing as it isn't a carrier born aircraft.They build them with tough gear for rough field landings and unpaved operations. And once the "neck" became a stress failure point, all the energy went into that instead as the weakest link.
They build them with tough gear for rough field landings and unpaved operations. And once the "neck" became a stress failure point, all the energy went into that instead as the weakest link.
That said, it sure came in on a steep descent and flared late; I'd say visibility and weather conditions (plus a complete lack of clearing the runway) were primary causes. Could the snow have fudged the readings of the radar altimeters onboard?
Looking at the weather, I have to wonder why they were even flying...
bad photo shop - where are the huge black smoke trails?
Now, how's THAT for a unique flight line?
For some reason I now have this crazy desire to see a Bear and a BUFF try to dogfight eachother! :))
Interesting article on a unique bird.Judging by the URL, it's the story of Sofia, a young consulting medium (or occultant, who does occultations) and pilots an aircraft equipped with state-of-the-art scopes ("EO/IR means Ectoplasmic Occult Interdimensional Receptors") on a mission to hunt the fabled Shadow Titan and stop it from unleashing Titanomachy 2.0
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-01/sofia-flying-telescope-occultation-chasing-shadow-titan/10635802 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-01/sofia-flying-telescope-occultation-chasing-shadow-titan/10635802)
Bomber Command's Operational Research Section (BC-ORS), analyzed a report of a survey carried out by RAF Bomber Command.[citation needed] For the survey, Bomber Command inspected all bombers returning from bombing raids over Germany over a particular period. All damage inflicted by German air defences was noted and the recommendation was given that armour be added in the most heavily damaged areas. This recommendation was not adopted because the fact that the aircraft returned with these areas damaged indicated these areas were not vital, and adding armour to non-vital areas where damage is acceptable negatively affects aircraft performance. Their suggestion to remove some of the crew so that an aircraft loss would result in fewer personnel losses, was also rejected by RAF command. Blackett's team made the logical recommendation that the armour be placed in the areas which were completely untouched by damage in the bombers which returned. They reasoned that the survey was biased, since it only included aircraft that returned to Britain. The untouched areas of returning aircraft were probably vital areas, which, if hit, would result in the loss of the aircraft.[20] This story has been disputed,[21] with a similar damage assessment study completed in the US by the Statistical Research Group at Columbia University[22] and was the result of work done by Abraham Wald[23].The deduction was that the bombers that didn't make it back probably had taken damage to the areas that weren't touched on the surviving bombers.
For some reason I now have this crazy desire to see a Bear and a BUFF try to dogfight eachother! :))
I know there was more than a few encounters with Sunderland flying boats and German aircraft in WW2 and one where a Sunderland fought of 8 x JU-88's whilst on patrol
http://ww2today.com/2nd-june-1943-battle-in-the-bay-sunderland-v-ju-88s
In August of that year the same crew with replacements was lost over the Bay of Biscay in a fight with 6 JU 88sAs a kid I read a fictionalised account of this, it was quite moving
No survivors
They got her together! Ah, I admit I have a terribly odd place in my heart for the P-39; it was a great design hobbled by some truly bad decisions but soldiered on well with the Soviets. I wonder how it would have performed if they'd given it a real supercharger like the P-51 did with the Merlin engines. The Allison 1710s really choked at high altitude, which was a shame because that 37mm would have eaten He-111s alive over Britain and done wonders on the flying boats in the Pacific.
"What could have been" I guess, alas. At that point I suppose rearming them with Noodle 37mms falls on the wishlist as well as equipping them with a full brace of .50s...
Which airplane had the most 50s in World War II?
Which airplane had the most 50s in World War II?Some B-25's carried 18 50 cal MG's.
Which airplane had the most 50s in World War II?
Some B-25's carried 18 50 cal MG's.
I have liked the B-25H since I made a Balsa wood model of it in 5th grade. Though I think that it would have been better to have something like a 40mm revolver cannon instead of a breechloading 75mm.Wasn't 75mm picked for more firepower against ships?
F-86 Saber had six. Some MiGs they fought only had only three guns. Two light caliber and a big honking bomber-killer.
Wasn't 75mm picked for more firepower against ships?
The 75mm was the same gun used off the Grant/Sherman early tanks. It was a light weight version that went later on to be used to the M24 Chaffee tank. It was manual loading so the rate of fire was quite low, you could get 2 or 3 shots in a attack.h
Which airplane had the most 50s in World War II?
Not all .50s but the Sunderland flying boat had fourteen guns in total:
Rear turret with four .30
Dorsal turret with two .303
Pair of .303 on either side of the fuselage firing from ports just below and behind the wings, later upgraded to 0.5
Front turret with two .303 and four fixed .303 in nose
Hence the nickname Flying Porcupine ;D
PBY Privateer had 12 .50s in six power operated turrets (two dorsal, two waist, nose and tail
Beautifully showing why the switch to Army/Air Force-style designations was such a welcome thing for the postwar Navy. ;D
You think that's nuts? How about Lockheed's proposed CL 1201?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/TBEathHBOSI/AAAAAAAAAYU/V0dhtqcVR5w/s1600/CL1201.jpg)
A Nuclear-powered aircraft with a wing span of 1,120 feet, carrying up to 22 fighter aircraft externally and had an internal dock capable of handling two air-to-ground shuttle transport aircraft. Just to take off it would have required 182 additional vertical lift engines. ::)
You think that's nuts? How about Lockheed's proposed CL 1201?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/TBEathHBOSI/AAAAAAAAAYU/V0dhtqcVR5w/s1600/CL1201.jpg)
A Nuclear-powered aircraft with a wing span of 1,120 feet, carrying up to 22 fighter aircraft externally and had an internal dock capable of handling two air-to-ground shuttle transport aircraft. Just to take off it would have required 182 additional vertical lift engines. ::)
Which airplane had the most 50s in World War II?Theoretically or in practice?
Which airplane had the most 50s in World War II?
Didn't GI Joe have a playset of a giant jet that could launch smaller aircraft? I know there was the Cobra Blackbird with a smaller piggyback fighter, but I think there was another one that carried an internal fighter.The Defiant (https://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/87/defiant/), part of which was recolored and released as the Crusader (https://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/89/crusader/) with a recolor of the mini fighter from the Cobra Night Raven.
I thought the D-21 launched off an A-12 variant, not an SR-71 variant.
It did, the M-21. I think the surviving M-21 is in the Museum of Flight in Seattle with a D-21 on it's back. I do remember something about an experiment NASA did with their SR-71 in the 90's where they were mounting the experiment to the back of the SR-71 and had pulled some parts off the M-21 to make it work. Then again, this is probably all just splitting hairs seeing how the SR-71 is also a A-12 variant. ;DEh...
It did, the M-21. I think the surviving M-21 is in the Museum of Flight in Seattle with a D-21 on it's back. I do remember something about an experiment NASA did with their SR-71 in the 90's where they were mounting the experiment to the back of the SR-71 and had pulled some parts off the M-21 to make it work. Then again, this is probably all just splitting hairs seeing how the SR-71 is also a A-12 variant. ;D
(https://airwaysmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/qantas-airbus-a380-800-680x365_c.jpg)
Airbus announce that they will cease production of the A380 as of 2021 after fulfilling the remaining outstanding orders for the super jumbo. QANTAS recently announced that they were cancelling the final 8 A380 from the order of 20 that they had originally placed.
Eh...
The SR is an A-12 variant the same way the F/A-18E is a Hornet variant.
Crusaders carrying AIM-120?They look like HARM.
Crusaders carrying AIM-120?This is the F8 after all; think a little older, gentlemen. AIM-7 Sparrows.
This is the F8 after all; think a little older, gentlemen. AIM-7 Sparrows.Crusaders had pointy noses. Those are A-7's
Not an extraordinary fit for the Crusaders.
Crusaders had pointy noses. Those are A-7'sAh right. Pointy vs stubby. I'll remember that.
A-7 is very stubby while the F-8 is longer.
Crusaders had pointy noses. Those are A-7's
A-7 is very stubby while the F-8 is longer.
Huh...I thought the SR-71 had a different fuselage forward of the wing and was heavier than the A-12 but the aft fuselage and wings were the same. Thanks.You were right. I didn't use the proper sarcasm font. The Navy pulled a little slight of hand with Congress. The Super Hornet is almost a whole new plane that happens to look a LOT like a Hornet, except it's noticeably bigger.
Edit: Glitterboy, thanks for the info on what's in Seattle.
Something I just ran across that struck me as just a little odd. A ferry flight?
The think that strikes me as odd is the attempt to refuel.They have a refueling basket on whatever that aircraft that is that can be used on USN aircraft.
That looks like a USAF boom trying to mate with a USN probe - isn't that trying to match two male connectors rather than a male and a female?
Navy A-7s, yes, though I thought they were AIM-7Fs - the visual profile is almost spot-on the same. Definitely AGM-88s, though. The idea of Sparrows on an aircraft that only had terrain-following radar and no air-intercept capability was really odd, hence my thought of ferry flights perhaps. Forgot about the HARMs.
Did the A-7 have terrain following radar?Dat caption, hahaha!
That wouldn't be the weirdest thing they ever put AIM-7s on. ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/OPfUebM.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/US_Navy_041101-N-3799S-001_An_F-A-18F_Super_Hornet_and_an_F-A-18C_Hornet_conducts_in-flight_refueling_from_a_U.S._Air_Force_KC-135_Stratotanker_assigned_to_the_Alaska_Air_National_Guard.jpg)Is there any quick way to get the drogue off the boom? In case an Air Force plane has an emergency and needs gas?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/US_Navy_050516-N-6694B-003_An_F-A-18C_Hornet%2C_assigned_to_the_Argonauts_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_One_Four_Seven_%28VFA-147%29%2C_receives_fuel_from_the_refueling_boom_of_a_U.S._Air_Force_KC-135_Stratotanke.jpg)
Did the A-7 have terrain following radar?The base museum at NAWS China Lake had a room dedicated to the AIM-9 and everything derived from it. There was one display case, maybe 6 feet long, 4 shelves, packed with a model of every air frame that had ever fired a Sidewinder, as of 2011. The title was, "You can shoot a Sidewinder off just about anything." The included various MiGs and Suhkois that would fire AA-2s.
That wouldn't be the weirdest thing they ever put AIM-7s on. ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/OPfUebM.jpg)
What are missile-carrying ferry flights for?
Basically to get them where they need to be from storage. Your also talking about ready missiles rather than shipped containers.Why would that happen? Wouldn't the, uh, end user have armourers who can get them ready from shipping mode to ready-use?
Wonder how that works.
The included various MiGs and Suhkois that would fire AA-2s.
Why would that happen? Wouldn't the, uh, end user have armourers who can get them ready from shipping mode to ready-use?
Seems damned inefficient, so I'm sure it's not the usual means of transport.
Okay thanks.
Okay thanks.
But I thought in such a case the nearest NAS would pull a few missiles out of the depot, load up a COD, then fly that to the carrier and let their armourers do the work of spinning them up or whatever.
And all that just to get a handful of Sparrows/Sidewinders out in quick time. I thought a carrier would have plenty of munitions on board.
Is there any quick way to get the drogue off the boom? In case an Air Force plane has an emergency and needs gas?
I suppose if you're iffy about the engine staying in one piece, that might be a good place to put it... ^-^
A B737-100 was 94ft (28.65m) long, carried 115 passengers and had an MTOW of 42,411Kgs. There were only ever 30 B737-100s built.
A B737-200 was has an extended fuselage with two sections; a 36in section forward of the wing and a 40in section aft of the wing (all other dimensions remained the same) giving a maximum capacity of 130 passengers and a MTOW of 49,440kgs.
My goog-fu and wikipedia indicates that CP Air only operated B737-200, so that should be a B737-200 in the photo.
Oh I see he had ordninance on his plane, I can see why he wanted to ejected.
I just hope the chair got him high enough for his parachute to do some good. The angle doesn't look promising...
Some background reading on ejecting from an aircraft https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26193/how-pilots-eject-from-fighter-jet/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26193/how-pilots-eject-from-fighter-jet/)
Here's the video. Good seat, good chute, good God that must have sucked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqOhssDZ00Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqOhssDZ00Y)
There's an interesting writeup here, not sure about veracity: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=60101
Wow, I can see why he chose to pull the lever! (the pilot was a "he" weren't they?)
Narrative:
After an uneventful two aircraft sortie their landing back at Kandahar, Afghanistan was held off by ten minutes due to a busy circuit. When cleared to land ATC requested an expedite landing and runway clearance due to heavy traffic.
The wingman landed first due to low fuel but received a hostile missile alert and released flares. ZG478's turn onto finals was too short and 6,500ft higher than normal. Throughout the approach the rate of descent was too high and 'Hover Stop' was selected in an attempt to correct this.
At 180ft full power was selected but the tail struck the ground 30ft from the threshold. The outriggers and main undercarriage collapsed as did the nose wheel when the aircraft pitched forward. The under wing stores (bombs, rockets, recce pod, targeting pod and drop tanks) caught fire as it slid along the runway for 4,000ft. During the slide the pilot turned the aircraft away from a formation of four aircraft waiting to take off then ejected as it slowed down, but before it came to a stop. The fire spread to engulf the whole aircraft
On the topic of ejections, has there been any mention of the F-35's big helmet? I know they were having troubles early on with the weight of it causing injuries on catapult launches, I can only imagine how it might cause problems in a bailout.
On the topic of ejections, has there been any mention of the F-35's big helmet? I know they were having troubles early on with the weight of it causing injuries on catapult launches, I can only imagine how it might cause problems in a bailout.Believe they fixed it some time back with a better headrest or summat.
they are also working on a lighter version. no idea if it is in use yet.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/18/f35.aspx
The permanent spinal compression is a thing.
(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.15598125.4611/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg)
The other one is that for certain aircraft types (eg Pilatus PC-9), if you are over a certain height then it is likely that your knees will hit the dashboard when you eject and you are at risk of being amputated at the knees.
Modern rocket-launched seats are the improvement. IIRC, the MiG-15's system would be one of the older explosive types with the expected side effects of suchI spoke with a docent on the USS Midway who had the dubious distinction of ejecting from an aircraft using the older mechanism, which he described as a "cut down cannon shell," and the new rocket mechanism. He said it made a considerable difference in comfort.
I've heard that some pilots that had to eject ended up as much as an inch shorter; the violence causing some permanent spinal compression. Again, beats the pants off riding it down, but still.
Hm. I wonder what the down-ward ejection seats do to you? Seems the B-52 had them.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/7a/a7/837aa70f34c8ac7cb038852c66f94800.jpg)
The CA-27 Sabre has been grounded since mid-2018 because the aircraft is fitted with a Martin-Baker ejection seat which was retrofitted to the aircraft during the return to flight service program at the Temora Aviaion Museum (TAM) - the aircraft is owned by the RAAF but on loan to TAM. Martin-Baker has notified operators of historic ejection seats that they have ceased supplying parts for all historic ejection seats. Current RAAF policy is to only operate the aircraft with a serviceable ejection seat.
TAM’s Meteor F.8 will continue to fly for a period of time as TAM has in stock the required ejection seat consumables to keep the aircraft airworthy for a number of years.
(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0a/e8/6f/9d/meteor.jpg)
They're fine as long as you meet the minimum altitude requirements - for obvious reasons.
One more pic:There have been rumors for a few years that they would put a plane back together and fly them. There we go.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-27-at-07.08.57-1024x637.png)
There's been rumors of the -117s coming back as drone aircraft, and with China Lake for weapons development, Ft. Irwin for training and evaluation, and Edwards AFB all in that region, it's the perfect testing ground - especially to see if it can be armed with more recent munitions (SDB, JSOW, etc) and still operate well.I was surprised when the -117 retired before the -35 was online. I know its a one-trick-pony and that's a four letter word in this day and age, but it's a pretty damn good trick. Did the air frames start showing stress cracking sooner than expected?
Zooming in on the photo, there's definitely visible cockpit glass, so it's not like other UAV conversions like the JetRanger or Piaggio Avanti where it's a slicked-over windowless design. Odds are, it's still manned then, unless they're using them as target drones perhaps? It's not like we have other stealth aircraft to test and train weapons against, like QF-4s or QF-16s.
Less thrust required?
A "who's who" of chinese fighters: left to right Shenyang J-11, Chengdu J-10, Shenyang J-8II, Shenyang J-8, Chengdu J-7, Shenyang J-6, Shenyang JJ-2. Front row Xian JH-7A, Nanchang A5.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/2a/49/8c2a49d80c3bed21f547e1029a01c812.jpg)
Now has anyone got any rational, non-belligerent (both ways) reviews on the J-20 and J-22 (not pictured)?
Also, Indian pilot shot down over Pakistan was reportedly flying a Mig-21. Brave, brave man.
W.
Uhhh.. A downward ejecting seat will need to be fired at a high enough altitude that the seat will clear the plane and the parachute is able to deploy. If you fire it too low, you become a smear on the ground.
You'd still want a solid kick to get you well away from the aircraft as fast as possible. Ignoring the whole 'it's a giant bomber loaded with explosives that is about to meet its maker' part, there's a massive amount of turbulence anywhere near a BUFF and, in all honesty, just because it's downwards firing in relation to the plane doesn't mean it'll be downwards when you actually eject.
The B-52 that crashed in 1994 at Fairchild was at the 90 degree roll point, with the aircraft yawing downward, when the copilot attempted to eject. Bombardier and navigator positions would have been going equally sideways.
Now, that said, what happens in something like the Guam crash-on-takeoff a couple years ago? Obviously the upper deck crew can escape quickly, but the poor suckers in the bottom of the plane (who survived without incident) don't have any option for that sort of thing. You're literally stuck just riding it out and hoping it's not too hard a hit? Yikes...
There have been rumors for a few years that they would put a plane back together and fly them. There we go.not rumors. plenty of pysical evidence like that photo. but it isn't any conspiracy stuff like drone conversion.
The Indian Mig-21 Bison is kind of similar to an F-16 Block 25 I think, at least in the AA domain. An argument can be made for some Block 52-esque capabilities.
and several countries have been refitting their MiG-21's (and/or J-7's) to more modern avionics and munitions compatibility. India, Romania, etc. the aircraft is still very rugged and with the avionics and weapons updated it still makes a very good interceptor. some Indian ones were even able to take down F-16's in some recent wargames. plus refits would be a lot cheaper than buying an all new 4th gen fighter.
The F-35C achieved Initial Operational Capability on February 28.
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/03/180318-N-WP746-0149.jpg)
Landing? Or doing a burnout on a non-catapult takeoff? ;D :Donly 20 years late! I know that's not fair, the F-22 had a similar distance to go.(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a2814e7f914c356018b843c-750-375.jpg)
At least they had seats. Lower deck crew on an Avro Vulcan had to execute a manual bail out if they needed to leave the plane
Same on the Victor(http://martin-baker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/mk18-info.png)
Another one with downward seats were early versions of the F104 because of concerns about the ability of an upward firing seat to clear the tailplane. Over 20 USAF pilots died after ejecting at low level because of the type of seat. They later put in an upward firing seat that could clear the tail but could only be used as speeds over 100mph. A lot of the export versions were fitted with Martin-Baker Mk.7 "zero-zero" (zero altitude and zero airspeed) seats
Same on the Victor
Another one with downward seats were early versions of the F104 because of concerns about the ability of an upward firing seat to clear the tailplane. Over 20 USAF pilots died after ejecting at low level because of the type of seat. They later put in an upward firing seat that could clear the tail but could only be used as speeds over 100mph. A lot of the export versions were fitted with Martin-Baker Mk.7 "zero-zero" (zero altitude and zero airspeed) seats
It dovetails nicely with the two-stage extreme range AAM the US is developing.
It's official. The USAF is buying at least 80, and as many as 144 F-15X Advanced Eagles. Able to carry up to 20 missiles, it will act as a missile truck for the 5th generation stealth types that have limited internal payload. It dovetails nicely with the two-stage extreme range AAM the US is developing.Remind me of the Alpha and Beta VF fighter combination.
Well they are legacy platforms but I'm sure they'll squeeze every inch of performance out of it, and the touted service life on those things are incredible. Theoretically we might all be dead before the last Eagle stops flying.
It's official. The USAF is buying at least 80, and as many as 144 F-15X Advanced Eagles. Able to carry up to 20 missiles, it will act as a missile truck for the 5th generation stealth types that have limited internal payload. It dovetails nicely with the two-stage extreme range AAM the US is developing.
AIM-120D is the current new standard, finally in full production and giving an "over 86 miles" range that, I've heard, is actually well past 100. There's a new toy that started getting funding for design and development in 2018, the LREW (Long Range Engagement Weapon) that, at the moment, is conceived of as a two-stage missile that can fit in an F-22's weapons bay. It's actually not a bad idea - after you kick the booster, you can probably push your smaller, lighter second stage much faster since you're not dragging a lot of dead weight. It'd be a nasty surprise for someone maneuvering to evade; all of a sudden the incoming shot goes from mach 4 to mach 6 (for example) and gets on you unexpectedly fast.Like I pointed out earlier. F-15X is the Veritech Beta Fighter and F35 (which it's supposed to compliment) is the Veritech Alpha Fighter. F-15X with 20 of the AIM-120D or other models. Wooof hello Macross Fighter Combat.
Wonder if they'll do something like a Starstreak, multiple A2A submunitions? The brits seem to be enjoying the thing; maybe there's something to the capacity.
Wonder how long before they to figure out how to fit the longer range version of the LREW into and onto a B-52 (a proper missile truck 8) ) . . .
BUFF don't have the speed to make best use of AAMs. A B-1B perhaps...Air speed of the launch platform can have a noticeable effect on the engagement envelope of a missile.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VhwoHbcJ--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/yjlc1j120spk5vqmwknc.jpg)
It seems I was wrong about the F-15X carrying 20 missiles. The actual number is 22.Macross Missile Spam anyone? I can't believe no one else have picked up how close this is to the Macross stuff? Or even Ace Combat?
Macross Missile Spam anyone? I can't believe no one else have picked up how close this is to the Macross stuff? Or even Ace Combat?life imitates art all the time
Sooo is this C3 or C3i?
Nova CEWS, without limits on networked units. ;)In practice it's probably more like TAG.
It seems I was wrong about the F-15X carrying 20 missiles. The actual number is 22. It'll also have a 20,000 hour service life.To be cautious, I'd say there's some fine print to be read about mid-life costs which isn't always included in these estimates
With it's $27,000 per flight hour opreating cost, replacing F-15C/Ds with Xs would pay for itself in ten years.
So 22 missiles at once from one plane. The carrying capacity is its biggest asset. The f35 and stealth to bring down the air defense , the f15x to lay the hurt down.How
It seems I was wrong about the F-15X carrying 20 missiles. The actual number is 22. It'll also have a 20,000 hour service life.20 missiles is still a lot of AAMs. How many were fired in Desert Storm?
With it's $27,000 per flight hour opreating cost, replacing F-15C/Ds with Xs would pay for itself in ten years.
20 missiles is still a lot of AAMs. How many were fired in Desert Storm?http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26305/f-15x-will-come-in-two-variants-and-no-it-wont-cost-100m-per-copy yeah they're going with TWO pylons on each wing, as indicated by both proposals for F-15 Advanced and F-15X.
But lets sit and stink on this for a moment. F-15E has 1 pylon under each wing, 1 centerline, and 6 on either flank. So that's 15 potential places to put a missile. The wing hard points can mount 2 AAM's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle#/media/File:F-15e.jpg) in addition to what looks like a fuel tank. Assuming the -15X would also want to carry external tanks, this brings us to 17 hardpoints. Historically, only two AAMs are carried on the flank hardpoints because of length of the missile and concern that the fins might hit something as its separating from the aircraft, but with more compact missiles like the AIM-120C, maybe 4 missiles to a side. That brings down to 13. If they remove the AN/AAQ-13 Nav and AN/AAQ-14 pods, and install hardpoints instead, that brings us back to 15. This image (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1868826&d=1375617422), from a questionable source, suggests that Boeing has been kicking around the idea of adding an additional pylon to each wing. If that's the case, this may not be hard. With 8 on each wing, and 4 on the flanks, that's 20 right there.
I am sorry, did I hear the theme music for Airwolf starting?
From what I understand the F-15 has always had the ability to mount the other two wing pylons but they never used them for a reason I can't remember at the moment. The F15SA and now the F-15X are the only ones actually using them.
Shame about Stringfellow Hawk though...At least JMV isn't hurting anymore.
Ruger
Maybe when Laser AMS or some Trophylike APS gets to fighters we'll see precursor submunitions and multiple warheads.
Wonder if they'll do something like a Starstreak, multiple A2A submunitions? The brits seem to be enjoying the thing; maybe there's something to the capacity.
I wonder how much of Silent Eagle is going into the -15X; I don't see the canted tail structure so that's out. But there could be some other LO stuff being put in, I suppose, since they're improving so many other things already.
Surprised its not being planned as a drone if it is fire support for the Raptors.That is NOT the only role for it. the F-15X is intended to replace the F-15C/D because their airframes are wearing out. It will do the same jobs that the C/D has been doing in addition to being a missile bus for the F-22/F35.
That is NOT the only role for it. the F-15X is intended to replace the F-15C/D because their airframes are wearing out. It will do the same jobs that the C/D has been doing in addition to being a missile bus for the F-22/F35.Yeah.
I dont understand that big pod under the Super Hornet.
The pod is big hung under the plane, the Super Hornet isnt really a Stealth plane, and the pod isnt stealthy.
Is it just to make 1 hard point turn into 4 or 6??
I think the point of the pod is that it's stealthier (and maybe has less drag) than having all those bombs and missiles hanging out in the breeze.
It seems I was wrong about the F-15X carrying 20 missiles. The actual number is 22. It'll also have a 20,000 hour service life.Excellent. We need something to compliment the F-22 besides the F-16 and F-35.
With it's $27,000 per flight hour opreating cost, replacing F-15C/Ds with Xs would pay for itself in ten years.
I guess a upgraded F15X may work better then the possible of B1R Missile Truck. The B1 has be out of production for decades.The B-1 is a damn sexy airplane that has spent the last 40 odd years looking for a mission. The B-2 took over as the first strike of the bomber wing, before it ever got off the ground. There were never enough B-1s or B-2s to put the B-52s out to pasture. It's a beautiful plane but what does it do better than anybody else?
The B-1 is a damn sexy airplane that has spent the last 40 odd years looking for a mission. The B-2 took over as the first strike of the bomber wing, before it ever got off the ground. There were never enough B-1s or B-2s to put the B-52s out to pasture. It's a beautiful plane but what does it do better than anybody else?Speed,
Speed,armourstealth, firepower - it was the Speedy one of the 3 US bombers. Which wasn't quite a great choice at the end of the day considerimg overall strategy and how events worked out... There just didn't seem a need for a really fast bomber.
The USAF's assessment is that both the B-1 and A-10 aren't survivable enough. They want the A-10 dropped for the F-35, the B-1 for the B-21If you believe Ben Rich's book, the B-1A was canceled because Carter was briefed on the stealth stuff coming down the pike and realized the Lancer was already obsolete. Then Regan campaigned on restarting the B-1 line. So when Regan won, he decided to keep that promise.
The argument is that the A-10's vaunted armour is no longer as much defence as it used to be compared to stealth and ECM
While the B-1's "speed is life" concept was never really workable and far less so now with oodles of far more advanced SAMs around
It was the 60s ideal nuke delivery package- fast & NOE . . . its not the bomb truck the B-52 is, and it was expensive to convert the bays to anything else. Tac Bomber roles got taken over by fighter/bombers- the last one I can remember being in wide use in the USAF was the F-111 which was like its ugly little brother. Its debate-able if some of the f/bs that had token fighter abilities are really f/b or tac bombers.
Low, slow and in the weeds . . . armor still helps against ground fire and missile frags. I have a laugh over the AF having to revive Vietnam-era birds for economic CAS for garrison troops.
It was the 60s ideal nuke delivery package- fast & NOE . . . its not the bomb truck the B-52 is, and it was expensive to convert the bays to anything else. Tac Bomber roles got taken over by fighter/bombers- the last one I can remember being in wide use in the USAF was the F-111 which was like its ugly little brother. Its debate-able if some of the f/bs that had token fighter abilities are really f/b or tac bombers.Yes the F-111 was in a similar position as the B-1.
Low, slow and in the weeds . . . armor still helps against ground fire and missile frags. I have a laugh over the AF having to revive Vietnam-era birds for economic CAS for garrison troops.
If you believe Ben Rich's book, the B-1A was canceled because Carter was briefed on the stealth stuff coming down the pike and realized the Lancer was already obsolete. Then Regan campaigned on restarting the B-1 line. So when Regan won, he decided to keep that promise.That's the generally accepted explanation, yes. As with all things we'll never truly know, eh?
So why shouldn't it be replaced by Tucanos and Reapers and 35s?
Which could be done even cheaper by the like of Broncos or Super Tucanos or Reaper drones. So why shouldn't it be replaced by Tucanos and Reapers and 35s?The F-35 lacks the loiter time and payload capacity that an A-10 brings to the CAS mission. While I have no data, my understanding of aerodynamics and thermo suggest that F-35s do not have terribly good performance or handling at low altitudes and speeds. While can't speak to the F-35's ruggedness, it's a damn expensive airplane, and patching bullet holes AND maintaining stealth has got to be expensive.
@grimlock - I meant adopting Tucanos for insurgency work, F-35s for near-peer work.
And yeah I know there's an aerospace engineer or five around.
@grimlock - I meant adopting Tucanos for insurgency work, F-35s for near-peer work.Point of clarification, I was implying that you are likely quite knowledgeable.
And yeah I know there's an aerospace engineer or five around.
Point of clarification, I was implying that you are likely quite knowledgeable.
Point of clarification, I was implying that you are likely quite knowledgeable.Hell to the no, man.
The F-35 is not going to try to do what the A-10 does, it is going to go about things in its own way.
The modern era has given us forward observers in greater numbers than ever before so the F-35 can stay upstairs and hidden and pop off a small missile or small diameter bomb to plink something that is being designated while the pilot sits surrounded by sensors and inputs to know where they need to be. The F-35 is also going to be able to get to where it is needed to provide support a lot faster than an A-10, especially if the A-10 had to go around something that would be a threat like a SAM site.
With Air-to-Surface Missiles with a longer range and great reliability but small (ish) size, we don't need the A-10's 30mm monster cannon and the lack of sensors or pilot aids hurts the A-10's ability to actually provide support when, as above, it eventually gets there.
If this was the 1980s and the Soviet Shock Armies start rolling across the border into West Germany then I'd love to have A-10s around but these days... I'd go with F-35s which can do the same thing in terms of hurting the person being nasty to you while training aircraft (Tucano, BAe Hawk etc) or drones can be adapted for lower intensity or threat work or if you are worried about losses.
Finally, the F-35 also offers far better strike and interdiction capability to kill the enemy's bridges, logistics etc as well.
The B-1 is a damn sexy airplane that has spent the last 40 odd years looking for a mission. The B-2 took over as the first strike of the bomber wing, before it ever got off the ground. There were never enough B-1s or B-2s to put the B-52s out to pasture. It's a beautiful plane but what does it do better than anybody else?
I read a Quoro post that made me reconsider some of these CAS arguments.
The F-35 is not going to try to do what the A-10 does, it is going to go about things in its own way.
The modern era has given us forward observers in greater numbers than ever before so the F-35 can stay upstairs and hidden and pop off a small missile or small diameter bomb to plink something that is being designated while the pilot sits surrounded by sensors and inputs to know where they need to be. The F-35 is also going to be able to get to where it is needed to provide support a lot faster than an A-10, especially if the A-10 had to go around something that would be a threat like a SAM site.
With Air-to-Surface Missiles with a longer range and great reliability but small (ish) size, we don't need the A-10's 30mm monster cannon and the lack of sensors or pilot aids hurts the A-10's ability to actually provide support when, as above, it eventually gets there.
If this was the 1980s and the Soviet Shock Armies start rolling across the border into West Germany then I'd love to have A-10s around but these days... I'd go with F-35s which can do the same thing in terms of hurting the person being nasty to you while training aircraft (Tucano, BAe Hawk etc) or drones can be adapted for lower intensity or threat work or if you are worried about losses.
Finally, the F-35 also offers far better strike and interdiction capability to kill the enemy's bridges, logistics etc as well.
Is the F-35 perfect - far from it. Is the A-10 golden - not really.
This is why they need to let the Army have it's own aircraft to provide CAS. Unfortunately, policy is not in favor that logical idea. Bring back OV-10D and let the Army handle it's own CAS/COIN missions. And no, helos can't do the job by them selves due to the limitations on how much and what type of weaponry they can carry.
And now for something from the other side...
What is it about that camo that gets me going?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wx7CrCNj/rEPemhi.jpg)
whereas I am totally ignorant
Hell to the no, man.I respectfully disagree with both you. I've read posts from both you, and while we may have differing viewpoints, based on our own knowledge, experience, and research, you have devoted time to study the topic. That alone puts you a step above 90% of the population. Maybe you can't launch into the a pro/con between tailerons and flaperons. On the other hand, you don't act like an expert. You ask intelligent questions. You listen to responses, which are at a higher level than most of the population can follow.
Or the German's abortive attempt to copy it, the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito.Were they trying to turn it into a radar bird?
(https://www.avionslegendaires.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Gta154-index.jpg)
It's a lovely shade on an absolutely beautiful airframe?Maybe its because I didn't grow up seeing them on aircraft in American popular media but canards always look cool and exotic to me. The way the nose, fuselage and wing all blend together on the Su-27 and its descendants is sleek and sexy. The MIG-29 has nice lines, although the wing to LERX blend is a bit blocky.
The B-1 is a damn sexy airplane that has spent the last 40 odd years looking for a mission. The B-2 took over as the first strike of the bomber wing, before it ever got off the ground. There were never enough B-1s or B-2s to put the B-52s out to pasture. It's a beautiful plane but what does it do better than anybody else?it can break mach 1 and flies like a fighter. which is all the USAF really wants.
Because you can never have too many pictures of the Moquito...
(https://i.imgur.com/upXEjXt.jpg)
Was that plane in the old Jane's ATF? I had a blast flying the F-22, learned to hate the -35 (I think it was in there), found the F-117 was limited, loved the B-2, and played with some of the other experimentals. I also seem to recall it had this . . .Hasbro got there back in 86-87.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f9/3a/81/f93a8162034fa2afc79cbca1b6b83ea4--fighter-jets-fly.jpg)
Then you have this for forward swept . . .
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i0OznbEOEU8/SZlB7pjTD7I/AAAAAAAAAZo/lj9Nn5K8-J0/s400/su-47.2.bmp)
Didn't this plane crash at a European show?
I think the Su-47 was where Hasbro got . . .
(http://www.hisstank.com/forum/attachments/g-i-joe-toy-reviews-quick-feedback/14442d1222193448-modern-era-conquest-x-30-review-profile.jpg)
My understanding is structural shading to aerodynamics . . . it was possible to flex the wings 'down' going into a high-G turn and IIRC there was something about the vortexes off the wings causing some problems. I know the X-29 was more a proof of concept but I would swear there was a fighter with forward swept wings that was rejected b/c it was a cooperative job with West Germany.
X-29 was a NASA project, the joint project with West Germany was a vectored-thrust job using paddles instead of a moving nozzle from the same period, but followed a more conventional wing layout. (both were profiled by Smithsonian Air&Space magazine in the late eighties). the west german coop never got to a full airframe, they stopped at scale models.
I don't know if it was the X-29, but there's an F-18 down in the Air and Space museum of Hampton, VA that has some of those thrust paddles...Are you thinking the F/A-18 HARV?(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/side_image/public/images/309908main_EC89-0096-206_full.jpg?itok=o5CW5JNd)
The -47 was a neat design; she was a BIG aircraft with a large fuel and weapons payload. The Russians apparently selected the 1.44 design from MiG instead, but Sukhoi pushed the prototypes through on their own for flight testing. They've got an FSW trainer now, dinky little thing, but it's a turnout from the program. Should also be pointed out that the Su-47 is hardly a stealth design, more in line with the Super Bug than the Raptor.Canards are enough of a problem for stealth without the FSW. There was a Popular Mechanics article about 18-19 years back that Northrop-Grumman filed a patent for a variable geometry swing wing that could have a stealthy, low drag cruising configuration. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/NorthropSwitchblade_PatentDrawing_1.png/220px-NorthropSwitchblade_PatentDrawing_1.png)
I also wonder how much of the development was pushed into PAKFA; main wings are different but they're both bigass pancakes of aircraft with wide-spread engines and those canards.
* The Navy has similar problems with its fighter pilot manning levels, GAO said. In 2013, the Navy was 57 fighter pilots short, or 12 percent, at the completion of their first operational tour at sea, which is completed between three and six years of service. By 2017, that gap had swelled to 136 fighter pilots, or 26 percent short of what the Navy was authorized, GAO said.And that's just 2013-2017, not 2006-2019. A lot of the -14 drivers that are still in are probably command or staff folks now. The in-seat lifetime is short, sadly.
Switchblade was a neat idea but I can't help but point out the leading edge of the wing is supposed to shift forward and retract into the sides of the airframe; that's gotta have all kinds of weird pockets and chines to make it work. The F-14 and company get away with it because they're only tucking the innermost ends of the flaps in; this would be the whole thicker front wing segment.It sort of did, with F-22. F-15 ACTIVE flew in 1988, so the first new fighter since then was Raptor. I don't think they ever took the governors off the vectoring gimbals either. The report read something like, "Turn rates achieved with thrust vectoring limited to X% of maximum range were obscene, and no one was quite crazy enough to try flying it with full vectoring turned on." I'm paraphrasing.
Still, the production photo was great, and I can only imagine there'd be enough bricks crapped in the Kremlin to build a whole new fortress had a photo like that shown up ten years earlier...
As far as vectored thrust goes, anyone know why F-15 ACTIVE never bore fruit?
Looking at the Ju-287 testbed on the wiki, it mentions wing warping as excessive flexing of the wings - and looking close at the design, it clearly doesn't have the LERX options put in. (Not invented until the 50s with the F-5, alas)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Modellphoto_Ju287V1_1.png/640px-Modellphoto_Ju287V1_1.png)
F-16 used to be a beautiful aircraft.I think it still is.
I think it still is.
Shame the F-119 is too big to cram into the engine bay of a Viper. Imagine a Raptor's thrust-vectoring nozzle and 10-15% higher thrust than engines used in the F-16 right now; she'd be a wicked nimble little thing in a dogfight.
I always liked the F-16, but I have a soft spot in my heart for smaller, lighter aircraft. F-5, G.91, F-16, love 'em all.
F-16 used to be a beautiful aircraft.
The -47 was a neat design; she was a BIG aircraft with a large fuel and weapons payload. The Russians apparently selected the 1.44 design from MiG instead, but Sukhoi pushed the prototypes through on their own for flight testing. They've got an FSW trainer now, dinky little thing, but it's a turnout from the program.honestly i'm curious to see how that turns out down the line.. because why get a FSW trainer if you aren't going to have combat fighters with comparable aerodynamics for the trained pilots to be using?
In terms of knowledge that the U2 spy plane is basically the love child of an F-104 Starfighter and a glider, I am today years old.(https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/Tr1a-95rs-alc.jpg?itok=8NfT2pjl) a day without learning is a day wasted, Bedwyr.
I think I was thrown off all this time by the stubbier nose.
It wasn't the normal tail or existance of honest-to-goodness wings? :D
Lol, couple weeks back we had the old warbirds in town. Its awesome when they do show up b/c they use the small airport near my house . . . and we are on the approach & take off paths. This year they had a few fighters- I think I saw a Mustang, but had two big bombers- year before just one. So like last year my 2 y/o got to see a B-17 come flying over on one side of the house lowering the landing gear . . . when moments before a B-24 had been lifting off on the other side.HAH! When I lived in El Cajon, for the Gillespie Field air show in May each year, I had the same thing. Just over half a mile from the fence around the airport and spot-on the approach path. What was freakin' glorious about it was that each year, to announce the show had come to town, they'd have a B-24 and B-17 (almost always Sentimental Journey, but I think they swapped another in once) do a freaking thunder run at no more than 200 feet to wake everyone up. I'm not kidding, and you do NOT get a lot of time when you first hear those monster Cyclones and Twin Wasps at high throttle to rush outside and see the whole train coming. The bombers, usually a b-29 joining them (not in the thunder run) and then a whole host of fighters and other aircraft, once even an EW connie and one of the last flying He-111 clones (back in the 90s, before it splashed). The Northrup Banana, fighters galore, all of it. Loved every year.
Hmm . . . 3SW tribute mercs, "Little's Raiders" . . .
Yeah, nothing modern sounds like those engines . . . last year I had the door open listening, and when I heard the B-17 (Aluminum Overcast) coming I took him outside so he could see it fly by. Its just a distinct sound to those bomber engines.
Yeah, nothing modern sounds like those engines . . . last year I had the door open listening, and when I heard the B-17 (Aluminum Overcast) coming I took him outside so he could see it fly by. Its just a distinct sound to those bomber engines.
Does he get a medal for shooting down an F-16 with his cannon?He's got a new callsign, for damn sure!
He's got a new callsign, for damn sure!idiot?
He's got a new callsign, for damn sure!
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/04/dutch-f-16-takes-cannon-fire-from-itself/
So does he get to claim that as a damage on his combat log? Paint half an F-16's silhouette by his name on the nose?
Dutch Vipers have fired their Vulcans at Dutch Vipers twice now, and so far, they've won every time!
Maybe this is the start of the Dutch civil war and he wasn't able to pick a side?
a few pictures taken off Facebook
Now I'm REALLY wanting to see something like a 16V fitted with this inlet plus EOTS mounts and a TV engine exhaust. It would be a neat little thing, I think...
There has always been talk of the F14 being reborn again to fly in active service. Its performance range and payload is much much better than the F18 Super Hornet. What I remember the F14 was very much a hanger queen and the crash rate of the planes was really high. But most have been scrapped so its just not going to happen.
Oh its nostalgia . . . just like another generation loves that flying brick, the F4.
Would I love to see a F-14 II produced as our next carrier bird? Sure . . . but even leaving aside the F-35 stinker, IIRC some discussion, it would never be a real Tomcat II since stealth & variable geometry wings do not go together to well. Have I really mentioned how much I hate the doctrinal reasoning for the -35?
I guess the artist mourns the Starfighter . . . for me, it will be the Tomcat. The GI Joe toy, the movie Top Gun, watching Robotech as a kid on my B&W TV . . . too me, its the 80s Cold War fighter and the ability to carry AIM-54 Phoenix was awesome!
But it does raise some interesting theory-crafting about updating stuff that is sitting in the boneyards.
I guess the artist mourns the Starfighter . . . for me, it will be the Tomcat. The GI Joe toy, the movie Top Gun, watching Robotech as a kid on my B&W TV . . . too me, its the 80s Cold War fighter and the ability to carry AIM-54 Phoenix was awesome!Nothing moves off the F-14s at the Boneyard without 2 Congressional orders, countersigned by God. I tried to requisition one of the OBOGS when I was interning at NASA. Naval Intelligence won't let anything off those planes because Iran still has them.
But it does raise some interesting theory-crafting about updating stuff that is sitting in the boneyards.
There has always been talk of the F14 being reborn again to fly in active service. Its performance range and payload is much much better than the F18 Super Hornet. What I remember the F14 was very much a hanger queen and the crash rate of the planes was really high. But most have been scrapped so its just not going to happen.the swing wing mechanism is the major factor in F14 being a hangar queen.
The main gun seems a joke . . . BUT, I see they are using the tail rotor set up the Navy was testing over the last several decades for their ASW choppers.The Army was looking at this as far back as the 70's with the Cheyenne.(https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzI3OTYzOC85ODB4LmpwZyIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NTgxNzAxNjZ9.v6fnX5kesgbj7L400GTGOXaVxINnSlV1uChhOrSDvpg/img.jpg) In addition to developmental delays, it ran afoul of interservice politics. The Air Force said, "Hey, those are fixed wings! Key West Agreement says we are the only ones who get to have fixed wing aircraft. Except for the Navy. And the Marines."
Blackhawk mod-
(http://i63.fastpic.ru/big/2014/0511/3d/0f24e73fb5f6fb85be4ceaff9fde0e3d.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/g3U8Dyc4knY/maxresdefault.jpg)
I cannot seem to find pictures of the recent Navy choppers where they used that sort of tail boom, which was smaller than the Blackhawk above . . . so its been around for the last 20-30 years IIRC, but its never been used on a production model. Makes me think that thing is like the 'concept cars' you see at the shows that never look like the production model.
The Army was looking at this as far back as the 70's with the Cheyenne.(https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzI3OTYzOC85ODB4LmpwZyIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NTgxNzAxNjZ9.v6fnX5kesgbj7L400GTGOXaVxINnSlV1uChhOrSDvpg/img.jpg) In addition to developmental delays, it ran afoul of interservice politics. The Air Force said, "Hey, those are fixed wings! Key West Agreement says we are the only ones who get to have fixed wing aircraft. Except for the Navy. And the Marines."
Reminder on the politics rule, guys- we've had a few posts wander a little close to the line.Sorry, sorry, will be more careful.
Again, I was more pointing to the tail boom for my doubts about that concept VTOL becoming a production model. Its been toyed with for decades, and for all the supposed advantages in the design it has not been adopted which makes me think its not practical yet on a deployed airframe.It might simply be a question of "why?". From what I've seen most military VTOLs don't have top speed as the highest priority, so "wasting" payload on that might not have been interesting.
Nothing moves off the F-14s at the Boneyard without 2 Congressional orders, countersigned by God. I tried to requisition one of the OBOGS when I was interning at NASA. Naval Intelligence won't let anything off those planes because Iran still has them.
I can confirm at least one flying from Pax River NAS- it's passed over the western DC suburbs a few times lately heading to and from that direction, and it draws my eye every time.
I thought that all the U.S. F-14s that hadn't been donated to a museum had a date with a shredder? I looked at the boneyard in Arizona on Google Maps and only found one, but it's hard telling how old the image is.they have, now. prior to 2009 there were still about a dozen in AMRG, which were the last batch to go to the shredder. go back farther and you get more present.
Okay, we have the Canberra & the Harrier; are there any other foreign planes the US has taken in under licenced production?
The T-45 Goshawk off the top of my head.
(https://milaviate.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/800px-t-45_goshawk_side-view.jpg)
Currently on her final active duty deployment. VP-40 left last month for Bahrain.
Did we ever bid good bye to this Cold War bird?
(https://duotechservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/p-3-orion-us-navy.jpg)
Speaking of the boneyard...the Air Force reactivated another B-52 from there recently.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28015/a-b-52h-nicknamed-wise-guy-becomes-the-second-to-ever-come-back-from-the-bone-yard?fbclid=IwAR1L-nGjNHGhsDyXsMJGRBpO4Pdnu7G5YA-WUdZv9Z4fBDxWmos7W6oHmj8 (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28015/a-b-52h-nicknamed-wise-guy-becomes-the-second-to-ever-come-back-from-the-bone-yard?fbclid=IwAR1L-nGjNHGhsDyXsMJGRBpO4Pdnu7G5YA-WUdZv9Z4fBDxWmos7W6oHmj8)
May its further service be dull and quiet.
Wonder what it would be like to skydive with that shield in front of you . . .Captain America did okay jumping with his shield in Winter Soldier...
Here is a live action of the Marian Hegemony deploy of airborne troops.
Wonder what it would be like to skydive with that shield in front of you . . .eh, just surf down on the shield. and you'd be protected from ground fire, as a bonus..
...but perhaps an F-15C or F-16 could have performed the interception?
The US Air Force has recently released test footage-
Super-duper stealth fighter to sneak up on targets . . .So far as I understand, they can drop those tanks, but they can't drop the pylon. Your stealth is still probably shot all to heck and back.
Gov management- sends stealth fighter with external fuel tank
(https://sofrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/F-22-Tu-95.jpg)
Wonder what that does with its RCS?
There's also "play games with your RCS so that the enemy aircraft don't get a good signature of just how stealthy you are." Not to mention it's Alaska, I'm sure everyone likes having extra gas to get back home.Gifting the other side's intel boffins with insomnia and paranoia is always fun, but why by obvious about it. Use small, color matched Luneburg lenses. Also, who took that photo?
One of the reasons the Air Force is going ahead with the F-15X.I do think its kind of amusing how this spotter/missile carrier arrangement is almost 180o from what was kicked around for the Raptor, back in the '90's. The plan back then was to have a bunch of Raptors running silent out front, then somebody way to the rear of the formation cranks their active radar up to 11. When that plane finds targets, they would be sent to the Raptors via satellite uplink. The Raptors would fire missiles from very close range with no active radar. Now the Raptors and Lightnings are going to be cruising ahead in stealth mode, and calling targets for the F-15X.
Gifting the other side's intel boffins with insomnia and paranoia is always fun, but why by obvious about it. Use small, color matched Luneburg lenses. Also, who took that photo?Raptor's wingman. You never go up alone.
I wonder how much work it would take to let an AWACS designate targets for the F-15X?As I understand we can do that now, it just means potentially exposing a subsonic AWACS to combat and putting a giant risk on that plane. Differences in detection and tracking ranges based on radar return, that sort of thing; the receiver on the AWACS can pick up very faint radar signal return, while missiles less so - so you'll need your radar source that much closer to your line.
As I understand we can do that now, it just means potentially exposing a subsonic AWACS to combat and putting a giant risk on that plane. Differences in detection and tracking ranges based on radar return, that sort of thing; the receiver on the AWACS can pick up very faint radar signal return, while missiles less so - so you'll need your radar source that much closer to your line.Yeah as discussed elsewhere, the plan is for the F-15X to back up the Raptor/F-35 once they painted bogies for the multiple missiles.
It's not a BAD idea, but piles a lot of eggs in one big, slow, and very visible basket.
The F-22 can blow the pylons with the tanks.I stand corrected! Thanks.
https://theaviationist.com/2014/08/08/f-22-fuel-tanks-jettison/
For some reason my phone doesn't want to make they link hot.
The huge distances in the Alaska airspace they might want to of escort and watch over longer than normal. Don't really need stealth for a interception.True, but here is also a certain amount of sadistic glee that can be had from sneaking up on some one at night then turning on your nav lights when you are a quarter mile off their nose...
You don't need the radar either, you just triangulate on the noise the Tu-95 makes.
I've never been up close to a Tu-95 before, of course, but from what I hear it's one of the loudest aircraft ever built.Supersonic propeller tips. It's four Thunderscreech aircraft in very close formation.
Supersonic propeller tips. It's four Thunderscreech aircraft in very close formation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZgBJOUcK3U is this right? I can't hear so I don't know if that plane is moving at sonic speed.
I remember F4 pilots chasing Bears could hear the Bear over their own engines during escort of the plane. The landing gear looks like it folds up in its self, the big pods on the wings. Most Soviet style airplanes had the big pods after the wings for the gear. Tu22, Tu154 and the Tu134 all come to mind. The runways are crap over there so they needs some strong landing gear.
I wonder if you can track a Tu-95 with sonar...from underwater.
It sounds like one of the galleries at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force was slightly damaged during one of the tornados last night in Dayton, Ohio. They posted on their Facebook page this morning that the Early Years Gallery is temporarily closed for repairs. There is a lot of damage in Dayton, but fortunately no fatalities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZgBJOUcK3U is this right? I can't hear so I don't know if that plane is moving at sonic speed.The optical effect at 1:32 is freaky. The way the prop blades seem to bend one way, then the curve flips as the blade moves through 9 o'clock. Fun with frame rates. :rockon:
Oh no! I hope it is't too bad!
They say it's just some metal siding on one of the buildings, so nothing major.
Not doctored. I believe that's the USS Los Angeles, and it was most certainly NOT a good day.
On 25 August 1927, while the Los Angeles was tethered at the Lakehurst high mast, a gust of wind caught her tail and lifted it into colder, denser air that was just above the airship. This caused the tail to lift higher. The crew on board tried to compensate by climbing up the keel toward the rising tail, but could not stop the ship from reaching an angle of 85 degrees, before it descended. The ship suffered only slight damage and was able to fly the next day.Wiki.
If that is not doctored like the one I shared . . . I have to wonder if the Navy crew could ever have a bowel movement again after that amount of pucker factor.A moment like that is when you put in an order for new seat cushions, because all yours have gone missing...
Hindenburg was the last pin and it was because USA refused to sell Helium to Germany. In spite of that, as blech mentioned she made 16 trips without serious issues from the hydrogen gas.Hydrogen is a perfectly well behaved atomic citizen. A spark in hydrogen atmosphere is nothing to get excited about. Now oxygen, on the other hand... Oxygen is basically Joe Pesci in Goodfellas (https://youtu.be/E84VqqCPI7w?t=44). Oxygen is just looking for trouble to stir up.
Lovely short vid of some Herc's flying in Wales
https://imgur.com/gallery/LRXR3wi (https://imgur.com/gallery/LRXR3wi)
Mach Loop is a place I really need to go to.
It is also in an area of spectacular landscapes and interesting medieval castles
Hmm... I got "video unavailable" when I clicked... :-\I think Youtube is broke at the moment.
Nice to see it isn't just the RAF's fast jet pilots who are afraid of heights, clearly the multi-engine pilots feel the sameI used to live under the flight path to MSP, and I'd often see the USAFR/MNANG C-130's coming in with the civil traffic. They were usually the lowest flyers and the most closely spaced, especially compared to the commercial jets.
I remember going walking in Wales as a teenager (on a Duke of Edinburgh expedition) and seeing Tornados flying below us just around there
I know some of the vets are jumping- I want to say I heard one Brit in his 90s had worked up for it. Sound bite had him laughingly talking about being told by folks younger than him jumping could kill him.
Here you go for aircraft details
https://www.daksovernormandy.com/aircraft/
17 Military
That page is so full of awesomeness that my navigator almost exploded. Thanks, DaveMac
...16 tons of spare parts acquired last year from New Zealand...:o
Two 6th generation fighter mockups unveiled within minutes of each other at the Paris Air Show.
Dassault, Airbus, MBDA Systems, Safran, MTU and Thales' Future Combat Air System:
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/DA00037313_S-1024x684.jpg)
Turkish Aerospace's TF-X:
(https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/IMG_9697-1024x768.jpg)
And the firing options were "Missiles," More Missiles," and "All the Missiles?"As hoosierhick says, there was another option...
Thanks... I don't think I caught them at the time (on sea duty, and all that...).This is the original clip Ogre was referencing
* Internet cookie if you get the reference.
The F-94C...the last gasp of the F-80. I always liked the F-89 better. Depending on the variant it could carry 104 ( :o ) FFARs or several guided missiles or a couple of Genie nuclear rockets (and was the only plane to launch a live Genie, fortunately). The battle of Palmdale did show that the FFARs weren't all that great for trying to shoot down planes, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale)Found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqUVtup1YpI
I tried to find a pic of the F-89 launching the FFARs, but I didn't see a good one.
(https://i.imgur.com/QvwsHOK.jpg)
That plane is going to have some serious crosswind landing problems...which they admitted too.
Reminds me of the Learfan with that tail and the smooth spitzer shape. Though...geez, one engine failure is going to produce some brutal off-axis thrust like that; emergency landings are gonna be scary.
I wonder how much is aerodynamics and how much is style. Butterfly tails don't noticeably reduce wetted area over a traditional arrangement, and IIRC, pusher props suffer a bit of an efficiency penalty as wellI think butterflies may actually increase the wetted area. To get X ft-lbs of pitch moment, you need to deflect Y square inches of control surface by Z degrees. Canting the surfaces presents less area in the vertical plane. Either suffer reduced control or increase the size, which adds surface area and weight. Maybe you can save weight on simplified control linkages?
Ideally, with fewer surfaces than a conventional three-aerofoil tail or a T-tail, the V-tail is lighter and has less wetted surface area, so thus produces less induced and parasitic drag. However, NACA studies indicated that the V-tail surfaces must be larger than simple projection into the vertical and horizontal planes would suggest, such that total wetted area is roughly constant; reduction of intersection surfaces from three to two does, however, produce a net reduction in drag through elimination of some interference drag.[7]
In modern day, light jet general aviation aircraft such as the Cirrus Vision, the Eclipse 400 or the unmanned aerial drone Global Hawk often have the power plant placed outside the aircraft to protect the passengers and make certification easier. In such cases V-tails are used to avoid placing the vertical stabilizer in the exhaust of the engine, which would disrupt the flow of the exhaust, reducing thrust and increasing wear on the stabilizer, possibly leading to damage over time.
Also makes a nice visual barrier against IR from the engine itself; never hurts to have a little less profile aspect when you're dealing with heat seekers.Good point. I doubt that airframe would respond all that well to hard maneuvers, like defeating a missile.
Two Luftwaffe Typhoons collided in midair over northern Germany today.
Though both pilots ejected, one didn't survive.
De Haviland Dragonfly, right? Gorgeous looker.
Ok, how about this one then:Reminds me of one of the Supermarine racers for the Schneider trophy. Also, Marco Pagotti approves of that aircrraft.
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20161008114022/1434587957824.jpg)
I was going to guess Supermarine S.4, but when I Googled it to check if the designation was correct the photo you posted popped up with a caption of what it was. That kind of took the fun out of it.
No clue, but I really want to see an external picture, to find out what the hell is going on over the copilot seat.
Ok, here's another. It's not quite window rivet ID, but it is the inside of a cockpit.Piper Cub?
Which airplane is this and what makes it unique?
(https://i.imgur.com/KKii9rC.jpg)
That's why you don't Google it. It has to come from memory. :)
I never knew about the Schneider Trophy, so I didn't have a frame of reference for the airplane. The closest I could get were air races in the US (GeeBee style) and Howard Hughes's H-1 racer which has similar efforts at streamlining.
Piper Cub?
looks like either a low wing or canard design, since we can see part of a wing outside the cockpit.
its too angular and clunky looking to be a Rutan design...
just based off the layout i am gonna guess a crop duster
very high seat when compared with wing level,
extreme amounts of windscreen, looks almost 365
DOH!
I meant 360 as in vision from the seat,
Bruntingthorpe's 2019 Cold War fast taxi day - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25mBU8RuhhI
And Buccaneer, and ...
NP. I'll give it till later this evening before I post the airplane and a bit of discussion surrounding it. I'm pleased with the picture selection.
If anyone else wants clues, I'll reiterate a few: obvious low-wing, right-wing step entry, yoke controls, pretty rounded cabin, structural bar running up the side from the instrument panel. Also note the mysterious crank in the ceiling.
Is it a Beech Bonanza of some flavor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor)
Polish designed agricultural plane. (yes that is a glorified cropduster) The Russians insisted it be jet powered for some reason, so we got the only jet biplane. then production was cut short (115 aircraft out of an ordered 3000) when the jet engine proved inefficient.
i have no idea why they insisted on a jet. perhaps there was some hope of converting it into some sort of cheap attack craft?
Ok after the beauty of the Supermarine S.5, lets go to the opposite extreme:
(http://www.smartage.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/306-1078x516.jpg)
Boeing 737 MAX parking cause of the grounding of the plane.
This picture and the like are going all over socmed. Am I the only one who sees it as a good thing? That Boeing is taking things seriously?
This picture and the like are going all over socmed. Am I the only one who sees it as a good thing? That Boeing is taking things seriously?
Ok after the beauty of the Supermarine S.5, lets go to the opposite extreme:
(http://www.smartage.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/306-1078x516.jpg)
Boeing is not having a good year. The MAX is Boeing's Money and its not good when those are not going anywhere. It will be figured out, soon hopefully for them.Airbus A380 engine problems, anyone?
It seems like new planes always have problems KC46, 737Max, F-35
Sounds like they're making double extra five by five sure that absolutely nothing is going to go wrong, with this particular process most of all
The PR disaster of yet another such crash would dwarf what we've already seen
This picture and the like are going all over socmed. Am I the only one who sees it as a good thing? That Boeing is taking things seriously?
An ex-RAF friend told me that Buccaneer crews didn't like a fast taxi because it was too slow for the extra altitude compared to a flypast...Hey look aviation pictures! F-4 doing a high-altitude pass.
The FAA was waiting for an investigation, and not jumping on banning what is basically the Ford F-150 of the skies, BECAUSE of the nightmare mess it would have caused. Had both of those crashes been legit pilot error, and there was no problem with Boeing's aircraft, then the FAA's grounding would have been premature at best and significantly damaging to Boeing at worst. Once the confirmation came out, and mention of other incidents that identified the problem, the FAA DID jump on it and grounded the bird.
That said, I'm way closer to rule 4 than I'd like to be, so I'll leave it at that (and apologize ahead of time) and just say "Boeing better be doing a full-down sweep on these planes and make sure they don't put them back in the wild with something ELSE that comes up...
Ok after the beauty of the Supermarine S.5, lets go to the opposite extreme:
(http://www.smartage.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/306-1078x516.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk)
Beyond Thunderdome flashback!Someone got it! :thumbsup:
I dunno...there is still this thing...
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Air-Truk/IMAGES/Airtruk-taking-off.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk)
I dunno...there is still this thing...
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Air-Truk/IMAGES/Airtruk-taking-off.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk)
What regiment are those Slayers from, I don't recognise the markings.
(http://www.bluejacket.com/usn/images/ac/f/f7u_vought_cutlass_b.jpg)
They'd eliminate the torque, but I'd expect the gearing to be the issue, not the actual props.I think noise might be an issue too as with the Russian Bears.
They'd eliminate the torque, but I'd expect the gearing to be the issue, not the actual props.
Darn you, Westinghouse, for blighting so many potentially great designs at that time with pathetic engines!
The Tigercats looks great... are you just teasing us about the French bombers? ::)
I don't see any access to the fuselage for those engine nacelle gunners... yikes!
As the wikipedia article indicates, nacelle gunners bailing out would have involved a date with a fast moving propeller unless pilot (assuming they were still alive) had been able to power down the engine (assuming that it was not on fire) and feather the prop . . .
I get the impression that a posting to the "operational" Airacuda squadron could be construed as commentary on your promotion prospects.
Apres moi, le deluge
That War Thunder bird looks really scary... once... And merely dangerous the rest of the time...OH that corsair, I love it I want to get it. Those little rockets? VERY HIGH penetration power. This is one of the planes you don't want to face in your heavy tank.
As the wikipedia article indicates, nacelle gunners bailing out would have involved a date with a fast moving propeller unless pilot (assuming they were still alive) had been able to power down the engine (assuming that it was not on fire) and feather the prop . . .
I get the impression that a posting to the "operational" Airacuda squadron could be construed as commentary on your promotion prospects.
As the wikipedia article indicates, nacelle gunners bailing out would have involved a date with a fast moving propeller unless pilot (assuming they were still alive) had been able to power down the engine (assuming that it was not on fire) and feather the prop . . .
I get the impression that a posting to the "operational" Airacuda squadron could be construed as commentary on your promotion prospects.
What regiment are those Slayers from, I don't recognise the markings.Slayer? Looks like a Super-Deformed Lucifer from this end.
I believe it's before departure and the pilot didn't close the canopy yet.correct, the plane is lined up on a catapult line and a person is kneeling near the plane.
Ah, missed the shooter, but the cockpit should still be closed if the engines are at full power. Even back in the day...Isn't that so he can bail out if something go wrong during take off?
It's a jet... there should be explosive bolts to remove the canopy.the ejection seats on the Cutlas were notoriously malfunction prone.. in the "on a hair trigger with a tendancy to throw the pilot into the air with no warning*, especially on take offs and landings, so most squadrons disabled to ejection seats. since the plane also had a tendency to have hydraulics issues on take off and landing (no mechanical backuos either) and their engines were rather underpowered for the non-catapult takeoffs they were having to make (no catapults yet) i wouldn't be surprised if the pilots took to using old propeller plane routines in order to have a chance to bail out if they went into the drink.
I would love to see a Cutlass done with modern fly by wire technology. I bet it would lose a lot of the death trap features of the time.
Just give it a decent engine
What did the early F-16 carry, and when was it improved?the original F-16A's could carry 6 Sidewinders (2 wingtip, 4 underwing) or could carry underwing bombs in place of the underwing missiles. and their 20mm gatling of course. various small changes occurred between 1982 and 1988 (Block 1, 5, and 10 models) which basically tweaked minor features of the craft, with older mo0dels refit to newer. in 1988 Block 15 came out which added a better radar, support for the Sparrow missile, and the ability to carry a AN/ALQ-131 Jammer pod, along with additional minor changes (increased tail size being one of the few non-avionics changes). the Block 15's were the first true all weather day night versions of the Falcon. Block 20 in the early 90's added additional avionics changes (including GPS, terrain following, and most of the stuff we're used to it having now), an even more powerful radar, and support for the AMRAAM.
Preferably two. ;)
Although one decent engine would still be more powerful than those pieces of Westinghouse.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/29/12/36A11B1E00000578-3714268-The_Optica_was_known_as_the_flying_bug_due_to_its_appearance_and-a-30_1469792086529.jpg)Echos of an OLD Mark Hamill movie - Slipstream
Idle thoughts. So we know the obvious benefits of jet power - much faster speeds, even supersonic capability, plus the ability to use much less refined fuels compared to piston engines. How long, believably, could an air force rely on piston power (air- and water- cooled) into the 1950s and 1960s for most situations? Weapons would be similar enough, and especially in the subsonic era the only real benefit I can think of for the jets are straight line speed and climbing ability.
So in the realm of the F-86, Hunter, MiG-17, or Mystere, how long could the F4U, Sea Fury, FW-190s and late Spitfires function as fighting aircraft? It feels like you'd be in a similar situation as the Japanese were in the Pacific - the American birds had speed and climb rate while the Japanese planes could outmaneuver and seriously outturn their opponents. Gunwise, everyone's slinging 20mm and 30mm cannon, and I imagine things like modern revolver cannon (the M39 for example) could be fitted* to those planes. Missiles, of course, even the odds a bit, but I'm more focused on the dogfight and close air engagements.
Obviously piston engine aircraft did fine in the ground attack role, and technically still do even in the US military - remember the use of OV-10 Broncos in Iraq a year or two ago? And some of those piston planes could haul enormous bombloads, such as the AM-1's record 10,648 pound load. So we know they're fine against ground targets and in the CAS/strike role.
But what about the air war?Only youpretty much anyone with a gun and an engine can prevent bombers, but how well would those piston planes do against 1st and 2nd generation jets? It's not impossible, apparently, even the A-1 Skyraider was known to have a few MiG-17s in its logbook and the Sea Fury has MiG-15s in its kill records.
Anyone got thoughts on this? Just how far can you push piston planes, and just how long could you hold on to them before finally modernizing?
*Pods, or even direct replacement. The typical paired Hispano-Suizas ran 220 pounds for the guns plus a hundred pounds or more for ammunition; the M39 20mm is well lighter than that, and even the DEFA and ADEN guns fit the mass budget. What this means for the idea of a Corsair slinging twin ADEN guns and its typical bombload in the 1950s BRRRRRRRRRRRRRTing the hell out of ground targets before dropping napalm all over them...
:drool:
By the way have an AM-1 Mauler, one big damn prop plane. Woo, spirals!
And other light aircraft, the grown-up love affair of an F-5 and F-86 - the G.91Y from Italy. With 4000 pounds of bombs, two DEFA cannons, and a loaded weight of only 17,000 pounds...that is one little airplane.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "possible"... even "slow" guns can hit with a sufficient lead.
Good point, but I think that realm is at least in the hypersonic range...
Related:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/MV-22_mcas_Miramar_2014.JPG/300px-MV-22_mcas_Miramar_2014.JPG)
How long, believably, could an air force rely on piston power (air- and water- cooled) into the 1950s and 1960s for most situations?
@ANS Kamas - how the hell did that guy's missiles bat 0/4, geez. I bet he had a lot to say to the weapons folks on the ground.There's a reason for the memetically loud screaming for the Phantom to have a gun in "the days of missile supremacy." Early AIM-9s were horrible, in all honesty; they couldn't see anything cooler than a jet exhaust, they had an 11-degree-per-second turn rate at most with the seeker head, and it was only intended to engage slow-and-straight jet bombers and not fighters. You had a terrible engagement cone with them and needed to be nearly straight behind your target or else the weapon wouldn't see the target - and that only if the target's rear end was in clear view and not going crazy maneuvering.
There's a reason for the memetically loud screaming for the Phantom to have a gun in "the days of missile supremacy." Early AIM-9s were horrible, in all honesty; they couldn't see anything cooler than a jet exhaust, they had an 11-degree-per-second turn rate at most with the seeker head, and it was only intended to engage slow-and-straight jet bombers and not fighters. You had a terrible engagement cone with them and needed to be nearly straight behind your target or else the weapon wouldn't see the target - and that only if the target's rear end was in clear view and not going crazy maneuvering.and the AIM-7 Sparrows weren't much better.. the early ones were beam riders so you had to carefully steer the radar to follow the target.. usually meant you couldn't do much more than fly straight and level yourself. (good vs bombers, not much else.) the later models were semi-active guidance, locking onto the reflected radar signal. you still had to track the target with your radar, but not quite as precisely and at that point you had radars designed to be able to do at least some of the tracking themselves, letting the firing plane manuever a bit more.
And yet they only had a 2.6 mile range, which meant you couldn't just snipe at a distance with them, while the vacuum-tube-based electronics were...notoriously unreliable. So if you COULD manage to line up a shot with a Sidewinder odds are it would break and just go ballistic, or else it would lose its target and go ballistic because said target turned, or it never got a proper heat lock and went ballistic, or it got scared and decided it wasn't going to let go of papa's wing in the first place.
I've read launch-kill ratios of that thing, early on especially, were something like 10%...
while the Russian designed aircraft often had similar issues with their missiles, they had internal guns and generally had received at least basic training in dogfight techniques for their fighters.We did have SOME basic dogfight training but it was primarily against same-airframe stuff. DACT didn't come in until much later; people who drove F-105s practiced against F-105s almost entirely, and...learned how to dogfight against the F-105. The problem here is obvious, when you look at the MiG-15, 17, 19, and 21 compared to the Thunderchief...
Found something interesting.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/ercoupe-was-airplane-anyone-can-fly-until-it-wasnt-180956769/
Which brings up the airplane’s safety record. There may be scant mention of stalls in the Ercoupe’s accident history, but there sure are a lot of steep descents to impact. Chop the power in an Ercoupe and you’ll see what I mean. As speed drops, so does the ship—alarmingly so when near the ground. So it may resist stalls, but it’s the king of level-attitude mushing at low power. The fact that Ercoupe manuals recommend an odd technique if you find yourself high on final and want to lose altitude should be a clue: “…The flight path may be steepened by rolling the airplane from side to side, dipping each wing 20 to 30 degrees. If the altitude is sufficiently high, this can be done satisfactorily with the wheel held full back and height is lost quite rapidly…” the Univair manual states. Yikes!
Fun fact: 1969's Soccer War between El Salvador and Honduras was fought by both sides with American WWII aircraft types. The war was the last conflict in which piston-engined fighters fought each other. Honduran Air Force Captain Fernando Soto in an F4U-5NL Corsair downed a Salvadoran TF-51D Cavalier Mustang II and two FG-1D Goodyear Corsairs.
Here's his plane:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Chance_vought_corsair_f4u-5n_FAH-609.jpg/1280px-Chance_vought_corsair_f4u-5n_FAH-609.jpg)
El Salvador continued to fly its surviving Corsairs into 1975; Honduras didn't retire its fleet until 1979.
I think it might be a interesting viability study to look at props as a defensive air fleet loaded with missiles. Not sure the cost difference between prop and jet would offset the payload difference (number of AIM-120s frex) but keeping them NoE to fire 'up' at incoming jets might be a viable strategy . . . though expect to take losses to your props. And I think your NoE would require some hill/mountain terrain, something to get lost in the clutter. Also wonder if you could loft a bigger payload of missiles if they used JATO or similar for take off.
Huh? I am not talking about catching up, bluntly that is the missiles job. More that the cheaper prop job carries more missiles aloft in the face of incoming and gets more missile throw weight as a defensive measure against fighters and fighter bombers.2 things; missile kinematics and intercepts. Firstly, a prop job or subsonic fighter would get less range out of the missile.
For example, if a Boeing 747 behaves suspiciously, and an intercept is necessary to see if it's about to pull a LockerbieOr if someone's being a complete ******* and running civilian transponders/IFF on a bomber for a sneak attack...
However, the general idea has merit, if you are talking about a B-52, or a C-130 or a B-737 derivative bomb/missile truck that is datalinked and can add throw weight to the gold/silver bullets. These type of platforms will give you the throw-weight and the loiter time. However, a better option would be a large UAV like Global Hawk which would mean your loiter time is limited by fuel and maintenance requirements not by the zoombaggers filling the on-board toilets to capacity.They decided on using F-15s for it, apparently. The F-15X, in two variants, a single seat and a two seater version. Can carry up to 22 missiles via AMBER racks.
The B1-R is not going to happen. That was going to be a re-engined missile carrier version of the B-1. With a speed of over Mach 2 and carry 24 Amrams.
But if you can get a new F-15X that is still being built a lot cheaper and carry 22 missiles, think I know where that Idea will end up.
Like the cover of some War Picture LibraryAh, the P-47 Thunderbrrt.
Skyworks Global and Scaled Composites will offer their VertiJet gyrodyne aircraft for the US Army's Future Vertical Lift competition.
The VertiJet is a runway-independent aircraft that can take off and land vertically and hover similar to a helicopter. VertiJet will incorporate technologies designed and developed by Skyworks in the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA's) Heliplane programme to achieve an estimated top speed of 644 km/h and a range of 1,000 n miles with a maximum payload of 454 kg. Skyworks and Scaled Composites are targeting VertiJet's unit cost for the USD 6-8 million range.
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/809/89809/p1734401_main.jpg)
(http://www.tobor2.com/helijet/helijet2.jpg)
Only 454kgs??? That's around 1000lbs. Less than a P-51 from WWII. What sort of role is envisioned for an aircraft with such a small payload? I'm assuming a typo there...
Damon.
Skyworks Global and Scaled Composites will offer their VertiJet gyrodyne aircraft for the US Army's Future Vertical Lift competition.
The VertiJet is a runway-independent aircraft that can take off and land vertically and hover similar to a helicopter. VertiJet will incorporate technologies designed and developed by Skyworks in the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA's) Heliplane programme to achieve an estimated top speed of 644 km/h and a range of 1,000 n miles with a maximum payload of 454 kg. Skyworks and Scaled Composites are targeting VertiJet's unit cost for the USD 6-8 million range.
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/809/89809/p1734401_main.jpg)
Looks kinda like this.
GI Joe the Movie is on the cable and watching it lately.
I look at that picture and I hear cheesy 80s action movie music.Gotcha covered Ogre. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULfmowbNlK0)
Gotcha covered Ogre. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULfmowbNlK0)
(come on, who wasn't hearing that play in your head anyway?)
Yeah, but it's not a bomber - it's an observer. That tail structure should give it away; think of the OV-10s that even got reactivated a couple years ago. This is basically the same airplane, just with magic VTOL powers and 200km/h faster. And really, eight Hellfires is plenty for the mission role.
...can't help but wonder if perhaps dropping further to six and adding a couple of Stingers isn't a bad move. After all, if you're already flying FOB jobs, can't hurt to be able to get rid of the enemy's version of your own bird.No disagreement there. Also makes relatively decent medicine against helicopters if you get a really nasty surprise - not that you can't outrun every whirlybird in existence at 650km/h but still.
For COIN? I am surprised we are even talking about that many guided munitions.Moving convoy of insurgents. Or tight targets; granted you're not going to be sniping individuals but pegging a single car near a hospital maybe. Hellfires aren't that big on blast compared to typical bombs...and they'd also make really nice support against 2nd and 3rd gen tanks that have been showing up in conflict areas. T-34-85s and SU-100s were seen in the Yemen fight in 2015, after all...
Skyworks Global and Scaled Composites will offer their VertiJet gyrodyne aircraft for the US Army's Future Vertical Lift competition.
The VertiJet is a runway-independent aircraft that can take off and land vertically and hover similar to a helicopter. VertiJet will incorporate technologies designed and developed by Skyworks in the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA's) Heliplane programme to achieve an estimated top speed of 644 km/h and a range of 1,000 n miles with a maximum payload of 454 kg. Skyworks and Scaled Composites are targeting VertiJet's unit cost for the USD 6-8 million range.
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/809/89809/p1734401_main.jpg)
That's... a LOT of rockets...
I'd prefer to see the outer pylons with a triple pod for proper More Dakka
Well, the Wikipedia article on it says it was capable of carrying 16 TOW's or even Sidewinder missiles (but doesn't mention how many of the latter), and up to 15 troops as well. Basically sounds like a US version of the Soviet/Russian Hind.The Blackhawk? 16 is a bit high. FatGuy's link to Sikorsky Archives says it was modified to hold 6.
The army decided instead to initiate a new gunship program, the Armed Attack Helicopter, AAH, which eventually became the Hughes (now Boeing) AH-64 Apache.
Sikorsky then made a few modifications to the aircraft and embarked on a foreign tour. The small cabin behind the cockpit was converted into a thermally- and acoustically-insulated troop compartment for six troops, with access provided through a door on the left side of the fuselage.
Always liked the Cheyanne, what killed it?Looking at Wikipedia, technical issues, outdated systems, large size, and lack of survivability, as it had only a single engine.
Still, it's a shame gyrodynes never took off, even in the civilian market. Much higher speeds, more fuel, more capacity...well maybe now they'll get their chance.
Looking at Wikipedia, technical issues, outdated systems, large size, and lack of survivability, as it had only a single engine.
And a demonstration where a TOW missile failed (despite being only one of over a hundred firings).
What's the drawback? I mean, there must be one since they're not used. Technically more complex?
Ten minutes of flight time? Isn't that about the same as most every other jetpack or hover device?"He is now eyeing a crossing of the English Channel, which would require a refuelling in mid-flight."
(http://www.tobor2.com/helijet/helijet2.jpg)
Me and the boys from the mill used to get together & pool our lego to make Saturn Vs - about 5'-6' tall, LEM was 4x4 bumps, legs swung out (not folded down). No special-purpose pieces available! At least we weren't trying to make the N1 ...Not hard, just build it hollow and fill it full of July 4 fireworks.
I think there's a problem linking externally from that file so here's an alternate host
More like a failed effort to develop their own U-2 analog.
YB40?NOt armored, too heavily armed. and that's not the YB40 in the picture.
aka too heavily armored to keep up witht the guys he is supposed to
cover
Oooh a Privateer. Love that one!It's not the PB4Y-2 Privateer which is a Liberator derivative. This plane is B-17 chassis with turrets seemingly taken from Privateer.
Ok...more info on the B-17: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/boeing-b-17e-flying-fortress-the-dreamboat-nose.43506/ (https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/boeing-b-17e-flying-fortress-the-dreamboat-nose.43506/)Thank you for that. Wow it really was a major improvement with one flaw (concentration of the crew in the forward fuselage).
Thank you for that. Wow it really was a major improvement with one flaw (concentration of the crew in the forward fuselage).
I never said it was a major flaw, but it was only one. Against a good variety of improvements.
Why do you view that as a flaw? I know that the changes might alter the centre of gravity and mean that the aircraft needs re-balancing but the change of armament seems to make things both more effective and more efficient
I find the argument that a single shell takes out everyone to be an unfounded concern as the survival of the plane is really reliant on the survival of pilots and controls rather than everyone else
How good is over 36 minutes of F4U Corsair goodness? It's good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9zPKQilC-s
How good is over 36 minutes of eleven of them in formation and making attacks on the runway and wowing the crowd? In heaven, the air echoes with the sound of those Double Wasps.
Damn if China doesn't know how to make a wicked looking attack bird.Look like a streamlined Apache, going off the frontal profile.
Look like a streamlined Apache, going off the frontal profile.
Look like a streamlined Apache, going off the frontal profile.
The most interesting thing about the Z-10 to me is that Kamov co-designed it. When was the last time anyone's seen a conventional layout chopper from Kamov?!
More seriously, that exhaust doesn't look terribly radar stealthy, in all honesty. I wonder if they're going for a forward-aspect focus for something like a strike aircraft, rather than all-round. (Or it's just not finished, and they slapped whatever zoom tube they had ready in it)I'm guessing it could be both, especially as the Russians have yet to unveil a deployable low RCS platform at this time. It also depends on the intended tactical role. If it's a strike platform, then only a forward aspect reduction may be required.
Man that exposed fixed landing gear is so gonna screw up the stealth profile. Silly Russians. :))
I doubt there's any stealth reason for the Z-10's shape. It's probably just done that way to provide more volume for stuff - batteries, fuel, armour, avionics, etc. etc. etc.
It's just designed-in instead of grafted on like on the later AH-64s
Mass Drivers suck, I prefer the Tachyon Cannon since it had the best damage to power use ratio and it was cheap enough I did not mind if it got damaged if I did not have a repair bot.
Looks like someone is hand building a De Havilland Mosquito
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7434723/World-War-II-bomber-Havilland-Mosquito-British-skies-2023.html
They are building it from the original 22,000 blue prints.
I got the honor of seeing one of the Mosquito at a airshow. Such a awesome plane, I hope they get it working.
Dark Green Vipers F16s look so differentthose were the short lived "F/A-16" version.. making that pairing of images rather ironic.
Surely the -16 is pretty subsonic once loaded down with bombs and AIM-9s?"The A-10 has a cantilever low-wing monoplane wing with a wide chord.[32] The aircraft has superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude because of its large wing area, low wing aspect ratio, and large ailerons. The wing also allows short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. The aircraft can loiter for extended periods and operate under 1,000-foot (300 m) ceilings with 1.5-mile (2.4 km) visibility. It typically flies at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which makes it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets.[52]"
"The A-10 has a cantilever low-wing monoplane wing with a wide chord.[32] The aircraft has superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude because of its large wing area, low wing aspect ratio, and large ailerons. The wing also allows short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. The aircraft can loiter for extended periods and operate under 1,000-foot (300 m) ceilings with 1.5-mile (2.4 km) visibility. It typically flies at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which makes it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets.[52]"
F-16 was designed as a high speed plane at high altitude, it can't loiter at low speed down on ground.
I have the four Albums by this ANG duo called "Dos Gringos" (Love them!) and at least once an album, there is a song noting their lack of loiter time and fuel consumption.
Wow. Why not, eh? I mean; this was the whole point of a Mossie, right? Built from plywood.
Dos Gringos is great! One of my fav bands.
SO wishing they would release another album. So relatable, even for an ex-leg infantry guy.
the one from Lewis is apparently in SA, need to take a look after
they get back
IIRC the F-104 was fairly "stealthy" by the standards of the time (engine buried deep in the fuselage IIRC), so the idea isn't quite so far fetched...
Damon.
Stealthy until a failed lawn dart roll, at leastIf I can't pick the F-104's radar return out from the ground, it has successfully evaded my radar.
Stealthy until a failed lawn dart roll, at least
So you are saying whoever wrote the AT portion of the rules way back consulted a F-104 driver . . . and thus was born the lawn-dart rules.
What's the legs on that little fighter?
The concept of a "stealth F-104" is ... :oGorgeous drawings. Although sticking external fuel tanks onto such a stealthy plane is... :lol:
Lovely aircraft - obviously it's mum Starfighter was very good friends with a Phantom ...
Gorgeous drawings. Although sticking external fuel tanks onto such a stealthy plane is... :lol:
What's wrong with that? We do it all the time.True, I meant it sorta kills the flavour.
Speaking of amazing looking but non-existant craft, its hard to beat the MiG-31 Firefox from the movie of the same name
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/50/0d/4d/500d4d9a8d4a7e0eab5a718868375eeb.jpg)
and some AU fluff about the fighter
https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/01/the-story-of-the-mig-31-firefox-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-most-awesome-fictional-advanced-high-speed-interceptor-ever/
It's the fan fiction love child of a MiG-25 and a YF-12.
Speaking of amazing looking but non-existant craft, its hard to beat the MiG-31 Firefox from the movie of the same name
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/50/0d/4d/500d4d9a8d4a7e0eab5a718868375eeb.jpg)
and some AU fluff about the fighter
https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/01/the-story-of-the-mig-31-firefox-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-most-awesome-fictional-advanced-high-speed-interceptor-ever/
Was the Night Raven a bit of homage to the Fire Fox?The movie version might be. The original...well it's pretty obvious where they got that one from.
The movie version might be. The original...well it's pretty obvious where they got that one from.
(https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/3/34310/1204574-night_raven_1.jpg)
Top Gun?? ???
Had some beautiful aerial photography, but was otherwise a dreadful movie.
Some more WhIfs...What was that a kit of?
Had some beautiful aerial photography, but was otherwise a dreadful movie.I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so
Top Gun was one of the greater movies ruined with a crappy love story.
To me, the title for that goes to Pearl Harbor, which was also let down by its very strategic use of cgi.
Ruger
And by it's failure to use CGI to cover up the modern frigates at Pearl.and the use of a modern USN carrier task group as stand in for the IJN striking fleet at Pearl Harbor.
And by it's failure to use CGI to cover up the modern frigates at Pearl.
The joke goes, the US & Japanese baseball teams were playing. Pride was on the line, and stakes were high.
The Japanese team said that if they lost, they'd apologise for Pearl Harbor.
The American team said that if they lost, they'd apologise for "Pearl Harbor".
and the use of a modern USN carrier task group as stand in for the IJN striking fleet at Pearl Harbor.
They wore pink flight suits back then?? ???
Wasn't there also a modern submarine leading the group in that shot?
And seeing how this is an aviation picture thread...a Curtiss P-36A Hawk diorama with a portrayal of Lt. Phillip Rasmussen on the morning of December 7th, 1941 in the World War II Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
(https://i.imgur.com/KGIg2HD.jpg)
Digital photography and its problems with stripes. >:DMoire camouflage!
Thanks DaveMac. I didn't think my link worked, and I couldn't figure out why from my phone.It was just a missing "/" in the following url tag.
It was just a missing "/" in the following url tag.
Looks a lot bigger here (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray.JPG/1920px-Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray.JPG), the thing's supposed to be able to offload 15,000 pounds of gas in total. Not huge, but enough for a flight of four perhaps, and a lot easier to operate off a flattop than a KC-135... :))That's like, what, four and a bit droptanks worth?
That doesn't look like it can carry nearly enough gas...About the same as a KA-6D back in the day.
I don't do airshows, somebody tell me: is this sound unique in some way? is it how all WW2 aircraft sound like? or do all props sound basically like that?Only the Rolls Royce Merlin V12.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6c3v9iihgw
Yeah that sound is commonly referred to as 100% pure lust.You mean this one.
Thanks DaveMac. I didn't think my link worked, and I couldn't figure out why from my phone.
You mean this one.Shrouds over the gun ports cause the whistling, same as the Mustang.
https://youtu.be/IBUKiKvl29Q
Shrouds over the gun ports cause the whistling, same as the Mustang.
I always thought it was the air whistling through the oil coolers in the wings on the Corsair?According to this: http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
According to this: http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
"Under the right circumstances, the wing mounted air intakes caused a pronounced whistling sound. For that reason, Japanese ground troops called it "Whistling Death". "
(http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/corsaira.jpg)
According to this: http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.htmlI can't find a video, but it was a Mustang owner who blew air over the gun ports and produced the whistle. If the ports aren't covered i think they Corsair does it too.
"Under the right circumstances, the wing mounted air intakes caused a pronounced whistling sound. For that reason, Japanese ground troops called it "Whistling Death". "
(http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/corsaira.jpg)
Speaking of amazing sounds. Ya folks have heard the Vulcan howl right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ARSE8jEHQ
That is cool. I always wanted to see a Vulcan fly.
How about an F-104 howling? The fun starts at around 2:30 into the video: https://youtu.be/vdDoKosn-88 (https://youtu.be/vdDoKosn-88)
My favourite Vulcan video
Beachy Head 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkWO5zVPz4g
I didn't realize how effective JP-8 was. Or for that matter how standardized the boom connectors were...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10052517/bradley-airport-crash-world-war-2-plane-building-multiple-people-injured/
Breaking news, no details yet.Haven't heard which B-17 it was.Hoping there's no fatalities in this one, but it sounds bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-O-Nine Specifically, this one. Still no word on anything other than 'injuries' which can cover a lot.
The old SW handbook describes the T-65's engines as some kind of jets, so... (The description is pretty much "sucks in vacuum, heats it up, throws it out the back" - and no, it still doesn't make sense! ;D )
Im sure it was KC-135 refueling that X-Wing....it might take that long to replace them all.
13 on board, 5 fatalities last I heard. :(
The old SW handbook describes the T-65's engines as some kind of jets, so... (The description is pretty much "sucks in vacuum, heats it up, throws it out the back" - and no, it still doesn't make sense! ;D )
Such a shame.
Especially considering the history of that B17. No fatalities during WW2 and 160 missions.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10052517/bradley-airport-crash-world-war-2-plane-building-multiple-people-injured/
Breaking news, no details yet.Haven't heard which B-17 it was.Hoping there's no fatalities in this one, but it sounds bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-O-Nine Specifically, this one. Still no word on anything other than 'injuries' which can cover a lot.
Comanche had only 6 Hellfires and a 2 barreled Vulcan.
And like the Comanche, this is an armed scout. Not a full-up attack bird.
i would not be surprised if they don't rig those winglets with an extra munitions hardpoint each for when stealth is less important than firepower.Box of donuts says they're wet plumbed for fuel tanks for extended range; burn off the tanks until you're in your contested patrol area, then pickle them and run internal fuel from there. Probably also wired for attachment pods like fighters, like a Sniper ATP to designate targets.
Box of donuts says they're wet plumbed for fuel tanks for extended range; burn off the tanks until you're in your contested patrol area, then pickle them and run internal fuel from there. Probably also wired for attachment pods like fighters, like a Sniper ATP to designate targets.
Kind of hilarious the FARA is back, since the Comanche was killed because recon was too dangerous and would be done with drones. Whoops we changed our minds...
turned out Drones weren't advancing fast enough after all. Kind of like other missteps in military aviation, like the infamous british White Paper of the 1950s that basically claimed fighters were made obsolete by Surface to Air Missiles, or the various times dedicated bombers were determined by 'experts' to be outmoded in the face of ballistic missiles. (Note: we're still flying B-52s, a platform designed in the late 1940s).Have you heard? Tanks are obsolete and useless now!
Have you heard? Tanks are obsolete and useless now!
i would not be surprised if they don't rig those winglets with an extra munitions hardpoint each for when stealth is less important than firepower.Wingtip Sidewinder-X, anyone? ;D
What, no pusher rotor? What century is this fromIt has small wings, so the main rotor can push more than it needs to lift, because lift is taken care of.
Now I'm wondering what drones don't do that this thing could. Reapers are pretty scary...They're also not very stealthy, don't have a lot to defend themselves with - starting with battlefield awareness, going over proper algorithms (i. e. "experience") and leaving at lacking EC(C)M - and can be hacked. In other words, the reaper is the O-1 Bird Dog of the 2010s. The FARA wants to be the survivor of the US Army's next near-peer warfare experience.
Yeah, we've had enough problems with drones being taken over...something something rule 4 something RQ-170 something something...
The shooting of the Drone was not the dumbest with the 50cal off the tank M8 which was to large to fit in the C130 but they out did themselfs when they shot down a drone with the 105mm gun.
I thought the M8 with the basic armor package would fit in a C-130?
What about "flying" the tank with the 105? ;D
The shots had to land somewhere. That's gotta be breaking some laws there too. And some pretty explosive hail.
EW/Cyber issues can happen to manned aircraft too, and honestly, anything relying on a ROTOR for lift isn't going to be very stealthy.It'll be stealthier with those stealth features as it would be without.
A Russian Lifting Body..... Intresting.
Hey, 40 years before the Dream Chaser was the MiG 105 Lapot.
(https://www.argunners.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Central-Air-Force-Museum-48-Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-105.jpg)
Looks like someone is copying the Russians for a change. ;)
EW/Cyber issues can happen to manned aircraft too, and honestly, anything relying on a ROTOR for lift isn't going to be very stealthy.
*snip*Defectors are proof that you can... ^-^
Basically, you can't remote-hack a pilot, but a Drone can be hacked
*snip*
I wonder if there will be an option for a Mast-Mounted Sight (MMS) above the rotor system as with the OH-58D?I fully expect such a thing, either for something like the AH-64D's radar or the OH-58's mast. Too useful and mature a technology to ignore, just not drawn in yet. Maybe they'll come up with their own design rather than trying to adapt existing MMS, hence they don't have pics of what it'll look like.
Defectors are proof that you can... ^-^
turned out Drones weren't advancing fast enough after all. Kind of like other missteps in military aviation, like the infamous british White Paper of the 1950s that basically claimed fighters were made obsolete by Surface to Air Missiles, or the various times dedicated bombers were determined by 'experts' to be outmoded in the face of ballistic missiles. (Note: we're still flying B-52s, a platform designed in the late 1940s).
Another pic of the Invictus chopper from Bell. Confirms the weapon station option, at least, and makes her an interestingly nasty light-attack helo as well as a scout.
I thought scout choppers were kinda killed because of Drones. One of the reasons of the cancel of the Comanche AH-66
I'm quite sure that will be a thing. Already is for the AH-64E after all.
No, but really - no pusher prop? Wouldn't it be better to base off of this thing?
(https://www.defenceturkey.com/files/content/5c151033a5e5f.jpg)
Problem with a pusher prop and stealth is your stealthiest aspect (RCS) is usually nose on . . . now you are talking about putting a big disc behind your bird for nose on aspect, RCS gets really jacked up.What about NOTAR?
(Stealth materials do NOT like field conditions. they like climate controlled hangars and gentle care.)I wish I had that picture of the F-22 from the demonstrator squadron that hasn't been maintaining its stealth capabilities (as it doesn't deploy for combat) that shows how much it abrades just from aerodynamic stress.
radar is still used for general detection of flying vehicles, and in a lot of places you don't have terrain suited to "hiding in the weeds" (most of the middle east for example) so minimizing detectability is still a useful safety feature. especially since there has been a proliferation of radar guided lighter SAMs, particularly Semi-active types. low observable design lets the scout get closer to SAM protected targets, useful since the scouts are likely going to be the ones illuminating such targets for aircraft at stand off distances to hit with glide bombs or ground attack missiles.
though you don't need RAM coatings in a lot of cases, just shaping the fuselage to scatter the signal and using composites in various areas you can't shape goes a long way. the sort of thing that the newer jet refits have been doing.
F-14 flying over Vietnam in 1975.great looking picture there
(https://i.imgur.com/mpslaGe.jpg)
F-14 flying over Vietnam in 1975.
(https://i.imgur.com/mpslaGe.jpg)
Huh. Didn't think they'd fly one over right at the end. Guess that explains Mickey's backstory in the Area 88 manga
Wasn't the F-14 a Navy-only jet?Yup. Primary focus was fleet defense, though it ended up becoming a bomber in the early 2000s before it retired.
I suspect the air-to-ground thing may have been the last gasp of the design, where the Navy was exploring possible other roles. But it's nearly certain we'll see UCAVs before it comes back.
I suspect the air-to-ground thing may have been the last gasp of the design, where the Navy was exploring possible other roles. But it's nearly certain we'll see UCAVs before it comes back.It's also a 50 year old design with absolutely no survivability over a UCAV on a modern battlefield, speaking in terms of radar signature and battlefield awareness, but a much higher price tag.
It's also a 50 year old design with absolutely no survivability over a UCAV on a modern battlefield, speaking in terms of radar signature and battlefield awareness, but a much higher price tag.
No, it won't come back. Before that happens, we will not only see UCAVs, but also buddy drones.
Any modern aircraft will be vulnerable to "hacking" the same way as UCAVs. Pilots no longer pilot, they give suggestions to a flight computer. UCAVs more of the same, not entirely reliant on full time communication.hah.
And the idea of taking over control isn't necessary either; a compromised software engineer can end up grounding a fleet of drones, piloted aircraft, or UCAVs. Or tanks. Or ships.
the age of the design doesn't matter that much.I beg to differ, I really do. The F-14 is a dead design that cannot do anything any of the planes you mentioned cannot do as well or better. Further, the F-15, F-16 and F-18 simply are no longer the planes they were 40 years ago: Every new variant offered today is a new production variant. It makes a very big difference, if you're talking about airframes or designs that are 30-50 years old: Newer frames last longer and they incorporate new technology as well, including applying stealth technology and techniques in construction. This is true for all three jets mentioned by you: CFTs, new air inlets, new construction materials for the wings or newer and better radar systems etc. All these things have been applied to the Teen-series fighters, none to the F-14. The last major upgrade to the F-14 was the D-model from 1991, the last minor upgrade was the integration of the ROVER III Full Motion Video (FMV) downlink conceived before 2005 (when it was installed). This is stone-age tech compared to Block 70/72 Vipers. And absolutely cannot compete with the changes made to the F-18 Hornet to make it the Super Hornet, which is basically a totally different plane.
See, the F-16 is almost as old, the F-15 IS as old (and has outlived its replacement-they're still building F-15, they aren't building new F-22s), the B-52 is a design that's old enough to join AARP and to have collected social security for a decade, (and thus far, has outlived two attempts at replacement), F-18 is in its forties now, and so on, and UCAV theorists still haven't addressed the central strategic flaw of the concept-that you have a single point of failure, that is achievable even with 1930s technology, that can put your whole fleet out of action or turn them on the user at a critical time-that is, they can be negated by a prepared enemy without matching the technological investment.
Even a fly by wire system is internally controlled, your hack has to happen inside the airframe.
I beg to differ, I really do. The F-14 is a dead design that cannot do anything any of the planes you mentioned cannot do as well or better. Further, the F-15, F-16 and F-18 simply are no longer the planes they were 40 years ago: Every new variant offered today is a new production variant. It makes a very big difference, if you're talking about airframes or designs that are 30-50 years old: Newer frames last longer and they incorporate new technology as well, including applying stealth technology and techniques in construction. This is true for all three jets mentioned by you: CFTs, new air inlets, new construction materials for the wings or newer and better radar systems etc. All these things have been applied to the Teen-series fighters, none to the F-14. The last major upgrade to the F-14 was the D-model from 1991, the last minor upgrade was the integration of the ROVER III Full Motion Video (FMV) downlink conceived before 2005 (when it was installed). This is stone-age tech compared to Block 70/72 Vipers. And absolutely cannot compete with the changes made to the F-18 Hornet to make it the Super Hornet, which is basically a totally different plane.
And yes, they're building F-15 and not F-22, but that's wasn't a good military choice, but for fiscal reasons. The F-22 got axed during the peace dividend at a time when DoD officials thought near peer conflicts would no longer happen. That wasn't true and today F-15s are bought because they cost about the same as a F-35A to buy, but only 20,000 USD to fly per hour, where as the F-22A would cost 200+ million USD per unit for a restarted production of 194 new airframes, but no real upgrades. And by the way, we're again not talking F-15 from the 70s here: Every newly proposed F-15 variant today is not an improvement of the F-15C/D, but the F-15E Strike Eagle, a baseline model from 1985, not 1972. And again, each airframe is new.
So in short, the F-22 shows what an absurd idea it would be to restart the F-14, a much older and much less survivable aircraft that is simply outdated and offers nothing a newer planer cannot do as well. Where would be the niche for a re-build of F-14s? What would it supposed to be doing better than any F-15X/EX, F-16V or F-18E/F/G Block III, which all are already flying or will be within a timeframe that would be even remotely realistic for a reactivated Tomcat? And why would it be in any way feasible to sink billions into such a program, when the much better and survivable F-22 does not get a second chance?
Nothing, Tomcats cannot do anything today other planes cannot do better, faster and / or cheaper. And yes, that includes UCAVs, because, yes, UCAVs can be hacked, but that's not something that will happen to every UCAV automatically. That is especially true for loyal wingman UCAVs that would receive commands from extremely close by fighter jets (or bombers on theory) over highly secured direct link communication channels and otherwise are piloted by their ever increasingly apt AIs.
needing 3 days worth of work after every flight is a pretty bad indicator, as is having a super-delicate exterior coating that, without which, you lose that 'unvulnerable super-plane-ness" means your down-time starts dipping into the "Unacceptable" range.I'll agree with you on the skin, as I mentioned above, but I'd say that supercruise, dogfight capability, some fantastic ELINT capability, and all kinds of dirty tricks with the radar system I've read about still give the F-22 some nice capabilities even without stealth. Were we to put out a nonstealthy version of the aircraft, I'd love to see how it turns out - more focus on performance than invisibility.
I'll agree with you on the skin, as I mentioned above, but I'd say that supercruise, dogfight capability, some fantastic ELINT capability, and all kinds of dirty tricks with the radar system I've read about still give the F-22 some nice capabilities even without stealth. Were we to put out a nonstealthy version of the aircraft, I'd love to see how it turns out - more focus on performance than invisibility.
I suppose this also damns the YF-23 which didn't have the agility of the F-22, but you can't have everything. It still wins the "most evil looking" trophy between the two.
Ah, the Gina, it sure wasn't a beauty, but she was well liked by her pilots here in Germany. Easy to fly and not complex, so maintenance wasn't a big issue. She could be flown from grass strips, her engine producing about 2 tons of thrust, quite a lot for a plane that only weighs 5.5 tons itself.
Or you just build for maximum ugly. Really surprised nobody's painted tusks coming out of the air intake on this thing; plenty with teeth but nothing quite like that.
(https://cdn.planespotters.net/photo/260000/original/mm6952-aeronautica-militare-italian-air-force-fiat-g-91y_PlanespottersNet_260314_62d3366a25.jpg)
... 617 Sqdn (yes, them) ...
Rectify some shameful ignorance, please? Who are they?aka the Dam Busters
Hojeez,...that might be a problem. Carrier landings are rarely gentle, can QE's deck handle that much history thumping down on her?Apres moi, la facture de réparation.
New photo of the Bell Invictus, from the AUSA 2019 floor show.
Getting a real Commanche vibe from that.It's pretty heavily based on the Comanche, though slicked down and unstealthed. The wings are new, as is the nose gun and sensor pack, though it's still got the same tail section and internal weapons bay.
(http://api.ning.com/files/ENEiGOJ7eLRnJ38YYgIzwPgdZZZll6dpLQQGcNDd*UQS4tJqCrVOl98f7Bez6wIoUhhsFLxfypl3M0-C68Tm7MwjuKRU*xhV/airwolf09.jpg)
The best attack helo the Army never bought.
I really don't see the benefit of an internal weapons bay for anything with a rotor. Radar only sees the giant disk.Aerodynamics, less drag helps. Mass doesn't change, but at least you're getting a slicker airframe. She's a recon bird, so speed is important. (You'd think they'd go with a pusher prop, but Bell's playing it conservative designwise compared to Sikorski)
Thanks now I have that theme song in my head...thanks a lot...
and Ernest B saying "string"
I am still hoping to find where Airwolf is hidden whenever I travel through Monument Valley.I would take info on the first and one copy of the second if you would please.
I'll probably find it parked next to a pallet of the first run secret edition Comstar Source book
I would take info on the first and one copy of the second if you would please.Comstar ROM: Stay right where you are.
if you find it!!!!!!!!
You have to remember, like BattleTech, Airwolf is the future of the 80s. It was probably permanently grounded when they tried to upgrade to Windows 95...Comstar ROM: Yes, that is most certainly so.
I hadn't thought of it until you mentioned it, but it DOES look a little like AirWolf...
It's been a LONG time since I saw that show...
It's been a LONG time since I saw that show...
And whatever you do, DON'T watch the 4th season! xpAFAIK there is no 4th Season
. . . holy crap, I just realized it is sort of like my father watching Star Trek OS when I was a kid.Scary, huh?
Scary, huh?
if you squint and blur some of the cheesy bits, the music is well utilized in the action sequences.
F-35?
F-35?Glass cockpit upgrade most likely. The full monty package if you can afford it and probably several less extreme packages below it you could upgrade too as well.
I'm there for the nostalgic intros and that's pretty much it. Well, the 80s shows that is. ST:TOS is amazing when it's good and awful when it's bad.
Sorry, it's the cockpit from the new Korean prototype; they've got something F-22-looking that they're calling a 4.5gen aircraft instead of going all-up stealthy 5gen with it. Meant to mention that, derp.
The best example of the latter to me is “Brain and Brain! What is BRAIN?!?!?”
Ugh.
xp
Ruger
Sorry, it's the cockpit from the new Korean prototype; they've got something F-22-looking that they're calling a 4.5gen aircraft instead of going all-up stealthy 5gen with it. Meant to mention that, derp.
That was one of the flat-out worst episodes in the franchise.I'm just gonna say "look up Swear Trek's entirely NSFW version of that episode."
My guess is that every micron of RCS reduction they can get, they'll get, it all adds up. But not so far as expensive coatings and whatnot.
It's interesting to look a the narrative of stealth tech. The very earliest things I read in the '80s talked about shape and a bit of coatings. Then in the late '80s, early '90s it became all about the coatings and composites, oh and the sawtooth. Gotta have the sawtooth! Then in the '00s it was almost all shape with a bit of coatings. Now it seems like its more of a 50/50.Shape including the sawtooth, coatings, heat and electronic emissions... and that's all I know. I don't know nuts else, and I wont take any odds that these are the only items on the list...
It's the KF-X:
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/903/91903/p1750316_main.jpg)
worse than infinite warp salamanders (https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Threshold_(episode))?The best example of the latter to me is “Brain and Brain! What is BRAIN?!?!?”That was one of the flat-out worst episodes in the franchise.
Ugh.
xp
Ruger
Some aspects of stealth are pretty easy - the sawtooth being one of them; you're basically doing everything you can to avoid a 90 degree angle - aka Perfect Reflector. You're also trying to avoid circular shapes or large curved areas for similar reason. Obviously it's not that hard to do, looking at aircraft design - and there's some benefits aerodynamically as well, as you're engineering loosely toward a lifting-body shape instead of a simple wingstubes. Proof of that comes from the efforts put into warships; look at a modern Burke-class and all the simple little things done to minimize radar signature. Trapezoid shapes all over the place (even on ladders and safety rails) to reflect radar emissions in other directions and force radar-guided ASM carriers to come closer into its engagement envelope before they can reliably shoot. It's not for true invisibility, but it does make enemy jobs harder.One thing about the saw tooth that always confused me is that it seems like a leading edge sawtooth is creating a 2D corner box effect. Like the reflectors on the side of your car. So there would be a narrow angle, directly in front of the sawtooth where the return should be huge. I'm guessing that there's something I'm overlooking.
Once you start getting into the coatings, metamaterials, things like that, then you get into the crazy expensive stuff. The physics are funky too, trapping radio-frequency energy and reradiating them as heat, for example. But that does bring up the other problem, thermal suppression - and 40,000 pounds of thrust in a four foot wide can does not easily disappear...
That was one of the flat-out worst episodes in the franchise.
worse than infinite warp salamanders (https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Threshold_(episode))?
One thing about the saw tooth that always confused me is that it seems like a leading edge sawtooth is creating a 2D corner box effect. Like the reflectors on the side of your car. So there would be a narrow angle, directly in front of the sawtooth where the return should be huge. I'm guessing that there's something I'm overlooking.Only if it's a 90 degree angle. A sawtooth for stealthing is going to be at, perhaps, a 50 or 55 degree angle - it won't bounce back to the original source.
I don't have a pic to show for it. But I got my Commercial Pilots License today. Pretty happy about it, its been a monkey on my back for 4+ years.Well Done Indeed sir!
Sikorsky is basing their entry on their S-97 Raider.
(https://static.turbosquid.com/Preview/2019/05/09__00_55_27/SikorskyS97RaiderRigged3dsmodel001.jpgD9EE2DE6-D9B9-490B-B20B-A8E17495F312Default.jpg)
The proposed Raider X:
(https://destiracenter.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/sikorsky-introduces-raider-x-a-nextgen-light-attack-reconnaissance-helicopter-based-on-its-proven-x2-technology.jpg?w=624)
We'll be waiting on Boeing's entry 'till next year though.
That's no Rifleman.(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/204/CaptainAmerica1_zps8c295f96.JPG)
If only.
I don't see a trailer link... ???Derp.
Hojeez,...that might be a problem. Carrier landings are rarely gentle, can QE's deck handle that much history thumping down on her?Dunno about the structural integrity, but it's sure got the sqft for it
Derp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEe3xfWfkG8
Sweet video! Where was the desert range, though? All the places that have Mirages AND deserts I can think of don't have cameramen up to that standard...according to the IMDB page, most of the filming takes place in france, with mention of a spot in england (site of a popular set of movie stages for rent), and Djibouti. the latter is probably where they filmed the desert scenes.
There is a story behind this that I am very, very curious about.I would guess Red Flag or similar exercises. Not a true kill, but bragging rights nonetheless.
Would that be a preheated chainsaw thru room temperatured butter?Nah, that just burns everything and you get a nasty smell.
TT
Would that be a preheated chainsaw thru room temperatured butter?
LMAO, I would LOVE to see the gun camera footage of the A-10's 30mm RAC hitting a airborne Hind . . .
(http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=70&w=1440&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F05%2Fa-10-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D85)
This guy took flying a Rattler to heart . . .
Mon canard est en feu!
TT knew why I said Rattler . . .
Can you see a V-22 Osprey armed with a 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon in the future?
I mean they have a GAU-19 Tri-barrel .50 cal. unit.
TT
The Osprey has a gunship version . . .Interestingly, that Osprey has a civil N-number of the tail, not the expected Navy Department Bureau Number.
. . . a real gunship was abandoned by the Marines though the producers did test a version that armed up like a Apache with more pylons.
Apparently, they also have a tanker version . . .
(http://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/V-22_Osprey_aerial_refueling.jpg)
From what I was reading, it went way over on cost to develop, cost per unit and maintenance costs were also bigger- to the point the squadron commander was relieved of duty for falsifying records and I think 3 people were prosecuted in relation. Basically during development, it came down to . . . you can get a helo at a bit more than half the cost per unit of a Osprey, costs less for upkeep, so why not keep them in their primary role of people-mover . . . though they do have something like 40 with that 3 barrel rotary, and upgraded that gun system recently after deciding to forgo the gunship role. Sometime like 2015 or 2016 Bell tested out a model using like I said a Apache style load out (big gun, Hellfires, rockets and other stuff) on pylons so it was a decent set of tests that made that decision.
I would assume the tanker version was another Bell testbed.
Thing is, the Osprey is a good helicopter-aeroplane, not a good helicopter and not a good aeroplane. It's the old generalist-specialist story.The as one old Navy mechanic described it, they took the UH-1B gunship, and put it on a diet.
So if you want something that can pick up people like a helicopter and then move them somewhere really far really fast like an aeroplane, then the Osprey's your man.
But if you want something that can just pick up people, with great range and speed not a concern, the helicopter is more cost-effective. And if you want something that can go really far and really fast, and hovering and VTOL is not a concern, then the aeroplane is more cost-effective.
With regards to helicopter gunships, correct me if I'm wrong but their main advantage is in their small size - they are harder to hit, easier to conceal, and don't take up much hangar space or deck space. Ospreys aren't any of that, except for the deck space bit.
And fast jets have got the "flying really far really fast" end of combat air tied down. So again, no niche for Ospreys there.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/USS_America_%28LHA-6%29_F-35B_loaded.jpg/1024px-USS_America_%28LHA-6%29_F-35B_loaded.jpg)
With regards to helicopter gunships, correct me if I'm wrong but their main advantage is in their small size - they are harder to hit, easier to conceal, and don't take up much hangar space or deck space.
Idle question. Anyone got data on strengths of the German or French air force around the mid cold-war? Like, troop numbers, aircraft count, airfields, that sort of thing. Still slowly putting together that one project of mine.
Meanwhile, have a Alpha jet.
(http://www.airvectors.net/avalpha_1.jpg)
Idle question. Anyone got data on strengths of the German or French air force around the mid cold-war? Like, troop numbers, aircraft count, airfields, that sort of thing. Still slowly putting together that one project of mine.There is the Royal Air Force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Royal_Air_Force_in_1989
I just realised the Alpha Jet looks vaguely like the Su-25.Other than they're both twin engine attack jets, they're very different machines. The Frogfoot's 17 feet wider with those wings, and weighs two and a half times what the Alpha does. Ordnance-wise, the Frog's a lot closer to the A-10 - big 30mm (two-barrel) onboard cannon and nearly 10,000 pounds of stuff on the wings, while the Alpha's got an optional gun pack and that eats into its 5900 pound ordnance load.
I just realised the Alpha Jet looks vaguely like the Su-25.No, not at all. The Alpha Jet was a trainer and light attack plane, and still is used as a trainer by the French and Belgian air forces. The Su-25 Frogfoot is, as has been mentioned, the pendent to the A-10 (although less efficient, I would argue). The Alpha Jet had the role to bring light attack capabilities to the front and it could be argued that it did what the Russians and Americans could do with attack helicopters in an age, when the continental NATO allies did not yet have such attack helicopters.
The Su-25 looks more like the A-9 concept plan that lost to the A-10 and the rest is history.I've never seen the A-9. Nice. Russian aircraft looking like American aircraft... imagine that.
Which means the reality will be much LESS interesting to read... ::)
"We moved the spysat inclination two degrees with no onboard fuel waste. W00t!""next mission will be to dock with and steal Elon Musk's car"
Is that ... a TIE-Fighter cockpit window ... on the lower nose?Emperor's Hand: "Stay right where you are."