Phalanx Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 I just assumed that using a fresh new constructed airframe would cost more than an existing one. I also assumed that the parts would cost more than a new airframe. I not saying that all of the F-16's currently in service should be refursbished or converted in to this seeminlgy technology unfeasible variant but just only a few, and if that doesn't work, just pan the damn idea and come up with a logical idea to conserve money.
buddhafabio Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Went to the Fort Worth JRB airshow today...Are these taken at was once called Carswell AFB. my dad was stationed there once.
Lynx7725 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 I just assumed that using a fresh new constructed airframe would cost more than an existing one. I also assumed that the parts would cost more than a new airframe. 399528[/snapback] Knight would be a better authority on this than I would be, but my understanding is most military airframes (for frontline work at least) work under extremely tight design tolerances; when you optimize for a specific role, you often cut off the necessary leeway for other roles. So when you try to refit something not inherently compatible with the airframe, it gets expensive -- fast. IIRC, a good case is the Shornet vs. the normal Hornets. If I remember the discussion in this thread, the Super Hornet is such a radical "refit" that most of the airframe can already be considered a totally new airframe. Why did they go ahead with it? The answer I tend to get is "politics".. meh. At least that aircraft tends to go in one direction... And another one is the F-14's ability to bomb. Granted, IIRC, such a capability is already built into the plane to begin with, but it's still a big deal that an airframe not optimized for bombing could bomb, and bomb well. It was a big deal because the military can now conceivably get more out of an airframe without spending a single dime (well, at least not more than to get some electronics hung off a rail somewhere..). Seriously, if you really have an interest in this area (as in aviation) take the time to read through this thread (plus the earlier incarnation). A lot of the discussions here are enlightening if a bit spread over the place.
reddsun1 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Cool airshow pics. Love 'em, keep 'em coming. You know, this is a silly thing to admit to--but every time I see a pic of a Hornet, I think: if somebody built an actual VF-1, it'd be about that size [ok, it's actually about 5' or 6' shorter].
Skull Leader Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 And another one is the F-14's ability to bomb. Granted, IIRC, such a capability is already built into the plane to begin with, but it's still a big deal that an airframe not optimized for bombing could bomb, and bomb well. It was a big deal because the military can now conceivably get more out of an airframe without spending a single dime (well, at least not more than to get some electronics hung off a rail somewhere..). 399531[/snapback] If, by that, you mean the lantirn pod, it's worth noting that The F-14 wasn't the only aircraft to receive this upgrade. Both the F-16 and the F-15E (long considered ground-attack mainstays) also got this...
ALLAN Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Went to the Fort Worth JRB airshow today...Are these taken at was once called Carswell AFB. my dad was stationed there once. 399530[/snapback] Now it's called NAS Forth Worth JRB. I still call it Carswell AFB.
David Hingtgen Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 If, by that, you mean the lantirn pod, it's worth noting that The F-14 wasn't the only aircraft to receive this upgrade. Both the F-16 and the F-15E (long considered ground-attack mainstays) also got this... Both of which (F-15 and 16) also weren't supposed to ever bomb. LANTIRN--making night-strikers out of day fighters since the mid-80's.
Graham Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Just curious, anybody know where the chaff and flare launchers are located on the F-22, or even if it has chaff and flare launchers? If it has them, I'm presuming that like its offensive weapons, they must be hidden behind doors when not in use to preserve stealth. Graham
Warmaker Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Went to the Fort Worth JRB airshow today...Are these taken at was once called Carswell AFB. my dad was stationed there once. 399530[/snapback] Now it's called NAS Forth Worth JRB. I still call it Carswell AFB. 399543[/snapback] I was stationed there in 1998-1999 with the Reserve Marine KC-130 squadron there. Pretty mellow, relaxing place back then, especially since I was just finished with an Overseas Duty Station.
Phalanx Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) Just curious, anybody know where the chaff and flare launchers are located on the F-22, or even if it has chaff and flare launchers?If it has them, I'm presuming that like its offensive weapons, they must be hidden behind doors when not in use to preserve stealth. Graham 399583[/snapback] There are no chaff or flare launchers on the F-22 if I can recall Graham, but I think the side mounted missle bays may be big enough to accomodate may be 5 flares or so. I think the F-22 probably uses an active ECM system to prevent missles from homing into it. Besides, the flares and chaff would probably add a little weight to the fighter slightly affecting it's handling. Dave, Nied, or Knight26, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Also since I think that one of you guys are pilots like Skull Leader(correct me if I'm wrong) I was just wondering have you ever been to Red Flag Nellis AFB just to see what it's like? I remember yesterday when I was watching Red Flag: Thunder at Nellis on the Military channel and they were explaining how rookie pilots are able to perform a plethora of mission objectives based on alot of mission scenarios as pilots from around the world participate in joint exercises with USAF pilots. For those who wanna know more about RF, here's a link to this years RF program http://milavia.net/specials/redflag06-1/index.htm Edited May 15, 2006 by Phalanx
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Phalanx, to give you an analogy of how the idea of retrofitting is really out of the question. Say, you want to build a Pentium IV chip. It is definitely cheaper to build one from scratch then to take a 80286 chip and modify it to a Pentium.
Coota0 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) Went to the Fort Worth JRB airshow today...Are these taken at was once called Carswell AFB. my dad was stationed there once. 399530[/snapback] Yup, it's now the Fort Worth NAS JRB, and the actual runway and ramp area is known as Carswell Field. Politics I guess. My father-in-law was stationed there too. It's changed a lot since the last time was out there ('99) There's tons of new construction, and a shocker for me lots of on base housing, most of it occupied. Edited May 15, 2006 by Coota0
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Can anyone point out a site which carries lineart for the Hornet and the Rhino in the same scale side by side? Thanks!
VF-19 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Can anyone point out a site which carries lineart for the Hornet and the Rhino in the same scale side by side? Thanks! 399623[/snapback] Go here for the side by side lineart.
Knight26 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Just curious, anybody know where the chaff and flare launchers are located on the F-22, or even if it has chaff and flare launchers?If it has them, I'm presuming that like its offensive weapons, they must be hidden behind doors when not in use to preserve stealth. Graham 399583[/snapback] There are no chaff or flare launchers on the F-22 if I can recall Graham, but I think the side mounted missle bays may be big enough to accomodate may be 5 flares or so. I think the F-22 probably uses an active ECM system to prevent missles from homing into it. Besides, the flares and chaff would probably add a little weight to the fighter slightly affecting it's handling. Dave, Nied, or Knight26, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Also since I think that one of you guys are pilots like Skull Leader(correct me if I'm wrong) I was just wondering have you ever been to Red Flag Nellis AFB just to see what it's like? I remember yesterday when I was watching Red Flag: Thunder at Nellis on the Military channel and they were explaining how rookie pilots are able to perform a plethora of mission objectives based on alot of mission scenarios as pilots from around the world participate in joint exercises with USAF pilots. For those who wanna know more about RF, here's a link to this years RF program http://milavia.net/specials/redflag06-1/index.htm 399605[/snapback] 0 Phalanx where do you get this stuff? Yes Graham the F-22 does have Chaff and Flare dispensers how else could this picture have been taken? As for the actual location and whether or not they are conceeled behind doors I do not know. However, my educated guess is that they are in the square black panels behind the ventral missile bays. PS I also have a better one of it doing a full flare launch, just not on this computer.
Nied Posted May 15, 2006 Author Posted May 15, 2006 Actually Phalanx I don't think anyone here is an actual pilot (I've got a few hours of instruction in Cesnas though). The Raptor does indeed have chaff and flare launchers, Graham will have to wait until I get home from work so I can pour over my reference books to find out where they're located. As for re-building jump-jet F-16s, alot of that has been covered by other members here, but I'll just add that the Air Force will mostly be buying the CTOL F-35A (with maybe a few squadrons of B models for flexibility). There are "super" F-16 variants out there that could be adapted for use should the JSF be cancelled (US built F-2s with the F-16E's APG-80 radar and conformal fuel tanks would IMHO be ideal), but nothing that would have anything close to the range of capabilities the JSF brings to the table.
Phalanx Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Yeah Knight26, I was just making educated guesses with whether or not the Raptor has flare/chaff dispensers.But other than that, I honestly do tend to make up stuff that sounds reasonable. But I have curious question about stealth; If hypothetically an F-22 were to launch a missle from wing mounted pylons, wouldn't the heat of the missle cause the F-22 to be seen on a radar for a quick 2 seconds or so? I heard that the F-22 can actually be seen on radar but you would have to look at it very closely to notice it since it's radar blip appears about the size of a very small bread crumb on a radar screen. I also heard that in comparison of the B-2 to the B-17, the B-17's radar blip is about the size of a bumble bee on a radar screen opposed to the B-2's radar blip size(I forgot it as I saw this information on a TV program called Stealth on TLC).
Nied Posted May 15, 2006 Author Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) Sort of. The heat from the missile launch wouldn't be detected on Radar since InfraRed radiation is on a completely different spectrum than radar waves (though anyone with a good IRST might be able to see the missile itself. What would be detectable is the inside of the Raptor's weapons bay as the doors open for the shot, those doors stay open just long enough to launch a weapon (which depending on the weapon could be as long as two seconds). Incidentally that's how that F-117 got shot down over Kosovo, the Serbs got wise to the route our Nighthawks were taking into the area (lazy mission planning on our part) set up a SAM site along the the route, and when the F-117 opened it's bay doors to drop a bomb they were able to lock it up and fire off a missile. Edited May 15, 2006 by Nied
Briareos9 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Not wanting to read through 20 pages to check if someone else already pointed it out, but you do realize the A-10 is not being replaced by the F-35 but upgraded and redesignated A-10C, right? The snub nose isn't leaving service for a long time yet.
Nied Posted May 15, 2006 Author Posted May 15, 2006 I thought I might ask some of the regulars here what aviation related sites they visit regularly. We are getting a few new posters here who might like to know where we get this stuff from, but also people bring in plenty of info I haven't seen anywhere and I'd love to know where some of it is coming from. Any one have some good links that they'd like to share? (PS Once I get home from work I'll post some of my own favorite sites)
Nied Posted May 15, 2006 Author Posted May 15, 2006 Not wanting to read through 20 pages to check if someone else already pointed it out, but you do realize the A-10 is not being replaced by the F-35 but upgraded and redesignated A-10C, right? The snub nose isn't leaving service for a long time yet. 399654[/snapback] Actually the A-10C is just a stopgap to give the old Hog better capabilities while the F-35 comes online, and to supplement the JSF once it does. Curent planning has the A-10 being replaced by STOVL F-35Bs
F-ZeroOne Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Yeah Knight26, I was just making educated guesses with whether or not the Raptor has flare/chaff dispensers.But other than that, I honestly do tend to make up stuff that sounds reasonable. But I have curious question about stealth; If hypothetically an F-22 were to launch a missle from wing mounted pylons, wouldn't the heat of the missle cause the F-22 to be seen on a radar for a quick 2 seconds or so? I heard that the F-22 can actually be seen on radar but you would have to look at it very closely to notice it since it's radar blip appears about the size of a very small bread crumb on a radar screen. I also heard that in comparison of the B-2 to the B-17, the B-17's radar blip is about the size of a bumble bee on a radar screen opposed to the B-2's radar blip size(I forgot it as I saw this information on a TV program called Stealth on TLC). 399644[/snapback] Do you mean "B-1" or "B-52" instead of B-17? The USAF must be in financial trouble if its sending Flying Fortresses into warzones again...! Nied has already pointed out that IR and radar waves are different parts of the elctromagnetic spectrum, and that opening the weapons bay doors would increase the F-22s radar signature. However, its also worth pointing out that stealth is not magic - in fact, in the "Skunk Works" book by Ben Rich, theres a quote from a F-117 pilot who stated that the Iraqi air defence network could in fact "see" the stealth fighters on occasion, but could not get a strong enough radar fix to lock on a missile (theres a difference between a search radar and a tracking radar) - although its possible the pilot was talking about other forms of detection, such as IR or low-light TV.
Knight26 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Also on the Stealth subject, Lockheed has developed a devilishly simple method of detecting stealth aircraft. So simple infact, that while I can't go into the details here, that when other countries heard about it htey created their own very quickly. Basically just look for empty air that is moving really really fast. Also, it has long been known, since the 80s if not earlier that older radars could easily detect stealth aircraft. That is one of the major reasons why in the 80s we sold our radars to everybody, sometimes in the hopes taht the russians would copy them and use them. And, the major reason why no F-117s were shot down durign the first Gulf War can be creditted to F-4Gs and A-6Es, which cleared out all the SAM sites along hte F-117s route prior to going into combat. Basically any Iraqi radar or SAM operator was so sure he was going to die when hearing a jet that they turned off their systems.
Phalanx Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Basically any Iraqi radar or SAM operator was so sure he was going to die when hearing a jet that they turned off their systems. 399675[/snapback] Funny, because that same technique was used by that Vietnamese during the Vietnam war era as they turned off their radar sites to avoid missles launched by F-105's hitting them.
buddhafabio Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 i heard passive radar(which can be done with fm radio) and a LOT of computing power can detect stealth also
Graham Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Not wanting to read through 20 pages to check if someone else already pointed it out, but you do realize the A-10 is not being replaced by the F-35 but upgraded and redesignated A-10C, right? The snub nose isn't leaving service for a long time yet. 399654[/snapback] Actually the A-10C is just a stopgap to give the old Hog better capabilities while the F-35 comes online, and to supplement the JSF once it does. Curent planning has the A-10 being replaced by STOVL F-35Bs 399656[/snapback] Heh, them wacky military planners. They must be smoking some very funny cigarettes if they really think that the F-35B is really a suitable and capable replacement for the A-10. Graham
Knight26 Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Not wanting to read through 20 pages to check if someone else already pointed it out, but you do realize the A-10 is not being replaced by the F-35 but upgraded and redesignated A-10C, right? The snub nose isn't leaving service for a long time yet. 399654[/snapback] Actually the A-10C is just a stopgap to give the old Hog better capabilities while the F-35 comes online, and to supplement the JSF once it does. Curent planning has the A-10 being replaced by STOVL F-35Bs 399656[/snapback] Heh, them wacky military planners. They must be smoking some very funny cigarettes if they really think that the F-35B is really a suitable and capable replacement for the A-10. Graham 399716[/snapback] You took the words right out of my mouth
buddhafabio Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 airforce looking to use coal derived fuel for planes http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...7/1002/business
Lynx7725 Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Heh, them wacky military planners. They must be smoking some very funny cigarettes if they really think that the F-35B is really a suitable and capable replacement for the A-10.Graham 399716[/snapback] Not really trying to defend the funny-cigarette-smoking club of military planners, but... Is there really a need for the A-10 any more? The A-10 is a close-support aircraft that hangs dozens of ordnance under its wings. In a Warsaw Pact era, when it is expected that a massive armour thrust would be the main attacking force -- divisional level armour, perhaps? -- such stopping power is absolutely necessary. You need to break up that armour wedge as early as possible. But nowadays, it's really rare to see armour in that concentration, as far as I am aware of. You still get armour, but perhaps in regimental or lower strength. And given the other multirole aircraft currently available, do we still need something as, well, excessive as an A-10? Can we make do with smaller aircraft carrying less ordnance? After all, it's pointless to go to war if the war would bankrupt you even if you win... Just to note -- I like the uncompromising brutality of the A-10. Nothing like pointing a 30mm gatling at someone to get the point across. But it might be a tad excessive...
Nied Posted May 16, 2006 Author Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) Just like with the F-16, people make the mistake of judging the F-35 on what it's predecessor can do rather than what it does do. The A-10 can go down low and absorb lots of damage while blasting tanks with it's 30mm Avenger cannon and 1,000s of pounds of ordinance hanging from the wings, what it does do at this point is hang up above the battlefield at 10,000 feet (modern MANPADS can dish out more damage than even the A-10 can take) with a targeting pod, a jamming pod, a pair of sidewinders and 2-4 PGMs under the wings. It's main advantage at this point is that it can take off from relatively unprepared airfields, that would give faster airframes allot of trouble. An F-35B can do the things the A-10 is doing but get there as fast as an F-16 or F/A-18, can climb higher if need be, and doesn't need all those ECM and targeting pods. Seems like a good call to me. Edited May 16, 2006 by Nied
Warmaker Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Heh, them wacky military planners. They must be smoking some very funny cigarettes if they really think that the F-35B is really a suitable and capable replacement for the A-10.Graham 399716[/snapback] Not really trying to defend the funny-cigarette-smoking club of military planners, but... Is there really a need for the A-10 any more? The A-10 is a close-support aircraft that hangs dozens of ordnance under its wings. In a Warsaw Pact era, when it is expected that a massive armour thrust would be the main attacking force -- divisional level armour, perhaps? -- such stopping power is absolutely necessary. You need to break up that armour wedge as early as possible. But nowadays, it's really rare to see armour in that concentration, as far as I am aware of. You still get armour, but perhaps in regimental or lower strength. And given the other multirole aircraft currently available, do we still need something as, well, excessive as an A-10? Can we make do with smaller aircraft carrying less ordnance? After all, it's pointless to go to war if the war would bankrupt you even if you win... Just to note -- I like the uncompromising brutality of the A-10. Nothing like pointing a 30mm gatling at someone to get the point across. But it might be a tad excessive... 399732[/snapback] IMO, prearing your military to not be able to deal with the worst scenarios, especially if you're a big international player, is asking for trouble. There are still groups out there with healthy stocks of armor. Maybe not as much as the classical Cold War / Warsaw Pact threat, but they're still there. Also, the A-10 isn't exactly excessive. The F-35 JSF is IMO, "excessive" since it tries to be too many things and compromises alot. The JSF is also going to be excessively expensive since orders have gone down. The A-10 is a proven airframe using proven technology. It's shown that it can take a helluva beating and get it's pilot home. That's not excessive. That's just right. IMO, it's a waste to have an aircraft with short legs / range / loiter capability and only able to drop one bomb or fire 1 missile to support the ground forces. It may be fine for dealing with paramilitaries, but not fine if you will deal with a bonafide military force.
Phalanx Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Heh, them wacky military planners. They must be smoking some very funny cigarettes if they really think that the F-35B is really a suitable and capable replacement for the A-10.Graham 399716[/snapback] Not really trying to defend the funny-cigarette-smoking club of military planners, but... Is there really a need for the A-10 any more? The A-10 is a close-support aircraft that hangs dozens of ordnance under its wings. In a Warsaw Pact era, when it is expected that a massive armour thrust would be the main attacking force -- divisional level armour, perhaps? -- such stopping power is absolutely necessary. You need to break up that armour wedge as early as possible. But nowadays, it's really rare to see armour in that concentration, as far as I am aware of. You still get armour, but perhaps in regimental or lower strength. And given the other multirole aircraft currently available, do we still need something as, well, excessive as an A-10? Can we make do with smaller aircraft carrying less ordnance? After all, it's pointless to go to war if the war would bankrupt you even if you win... Just to note -- I like the uncompromising brutality of the A-10. Nothing like pointing a 30mm gatling at someone to get the point across. But it might be a tad excessive... 399732[/snapback] I think the A-10 is a still able fighter as it can still get the job done. I like how it's 30MM gatling gun sounds. But the only downside it has is it's speed as it can only go 439mph, which is slow for a typical attack aircraft. Sure it would be good if they refitted it with some afterburning turbofans than it standard engines and the A-10 will be truly called the 'thunderbolt" as it's supposed and hypothetically installed jet engines will roar like thunder and it's bomb will explode as loud as thunder but that will never happen at all eben though it would be nice. The "flying tank" is a unique aircraft and even though it has been also dubbed the ugliest plane in the world, I think she's a beauty that is not to be fugged with.
buddhafabio Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I love the A-10 as much as the next guy. but the airframes the airforce has are getting worn down. to the point they are going through the bone yard to get wing spars. and while we still need the flying tank it will at some point be to worn out to fly. i dont think the f-35 is a decent replacment for the A-10 and to find one you need a durable airframe with a big cannon. how many F-35s will you hear of comming hoime with massive amounst of damage? I know of 2 hogs comming home shotup bad 1 in each gulf war and i am not even in the service there maybe more. i know atleast one was totally killed also. so the hogs are not impervious.
Graham Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Correct me if I'm wrong here guys, but slow is actually good for CAS missions. Allows the pilot to see more of what's on the ground. Graham
Lynx7725 Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 IMO, prearing your military to not be able to deal with the worst scenarios, especially if you're a big international player, is asking for trouble.There are still groups out there with healthy stocks of armor. Maybe not as much as the classical Cold War / Warsaw Pact threat, but they're still there. 399736[/snapback] Point. But is the A-10 the right solution? There's really 2 parts to this question. The first is whether it is a cost-effective solution, and truth to be told it is; as you said, it's a prove airframe using proven technology, and that tends to drive the cost down. Personally, I feel the F-35 is the wrong solution to this problem. As you said, it's expensive, it's over-cramped with roles, and it seems to be a jack-of-all-trades and not really exceling in any. But, thinking on this, why risk the pilot in a close-in assault? Why not, as Nied states, stand-off and bomb the heck out of the ground armour, then send in the necessary force to mop up? Risking A-10 pilots in that situation may not be ideal, but of course there's no guarantee a high attitude stand off attack would be as precise. At the end of the day, the cost-effectiveness of a weapon systems is really about tradeoffs. Is spending 10 mil on an experimental platform and missile that can stand-off (and thus reduce the risk to the operator) worth the potential risk of sending in a proven airframe with proven technology? This is really a gamble that's not easy to answer. The other part of this question is technology progression. Yes, the A-10 is a proven airframe with proven technology -- which means it's a known threat. Without technological progress, it is just a matter of time before some (imaginary) foe thinks of a better technology, or worse, a new application of existing technology that would consistently deny the A-10 (and in doing, put at risk the pilots on those aircraft). And like it or not, the US aircraft technology seems to have really stagnated over the last 2 decades or so. The F-22 and F-35 is exciting because it's really using a multitude of existing or new technologies to create a new way of fighting a war -- preferably with a corresponding reduction in human losses (on one side at least). Like it or not, the F-22 and F-35 is absolutely necessary. I think the airframe themselves may be overrated and may be poorly suited to the role they are supposed to perform, but they serves as jump-off points to better airframes and technologies. Just cross your fingers and hope they aren't needed in a major conflict in the near future.... Personally, I think the amount of ordnance carried by the F-35 is waaay under what is necessary in a conflict. The less you carry, the more sorties you need, and that puts the pilots would be at risk more. I don't believe the F-35 is an adequate replacement for the A-10, if the A-10 really needs replacing.
Recommended Posts