Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Nied]

Because you can't keep a good thread down.

Last time on Aircraft vs Super Thread

Something weird I noticed in the photos Knight26 posted. The VFA-11 CAG and CO birds have 100 range modex and AA tailcodes, while the regular squadron bird in one of the photos has a modex in the 200 range (242 specifically) and an AG tailcode. What gives?

[Knight26]

that is strange, maybe someone in the paint shop screwed up. Also, why was the original superthread closeD?

[David Hingtgen]

It appears some of the very largest topics got "archived" into a new separate forum.

Read this, appears Roy was doing house cleaning:

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=18431

[Graham]

There's a French movie called 'Sky Fighters' opening at the cinemas here in Hong Kong this Thursday. Looks like it's got Mirages in it and some dogfighting. Anybody seen it already? Is it worth seeing? Thinking of perhaps catching it.

Graham

[kalvasflam]

Mirage... Mirage... Mirage... oh yeah, isn't that the planes that the Iraqis owned in great numbers that got shot down on a regular basis?

just kidding... heh heh....

they may as well make a movie about Migs, or F-5s... oh wait, they did. It was called Top Gun.

[the white drew carey]

"No Turbo, don't steal the construction worker's lunchbox!"

[Knight26]

There's a French movie called 'Sky Fighters' opening at the cinemas here in Hong Kong this Thursday. Looks like it's got Mirages in it and some dogfighting. Anybody seen it already? Is it worth seeing? Thinking of perhaps catching it.

Graham

384893[/snapback]

I haven't heard of it Graham, probably because it is french, but I doubt that it could be any worse then that garbagefest Stealth. Actually a friend of mine gave that to me a gag gift for christmas and I was thinking of doing a strictly technical review of it, but didn't feel like watching it again that in depth or getting banned.

[kalvasflam]

I haven't heard of it Graham, probably because it is french, but I doubt that it could be any worse then that garbagefest Stealth.  Actually a friend of mine gave that to me a gag gift for christmas and I was thinking of doing a strictly technical review of it, but didn't feel like watching it again that in depth or getting banned.

385002[/snapback]

Come on... how could you not like 'THE TERMINATOR'

I bet some Frontal Aviation (are they still called that?) pilots got a good laugh out of that. I wonder though, what kind of Mirage was it?

[Garou Kuroryuu]

Come on... how could you not like  'THE TERMINATOR' 

[sARCASM]

You mean, despite the OBVIOUS similarities from that movie with the X-9 Ghost and VF-19 Excalibur??? NAAAAAAH, HOW COULD YOU!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!!

[/sARCASM]

Edited March 28, 2006 by Garou Kuroryuu

[Knight26]

The scene with the Su-37 was cool because of the Su-37 but the fact that they fought against them also quite stupid, the "Talon" pilot should have joined with them to take out the UCAV.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

There's a French movie called 'Sky Fighters' opening at the cinemas here in Hong Kong this Thursday. Looks like it's got Mirages in it and some dogfighting. Anybody seen it already? Is it worth seeing? Thinking of perhaps catching it.

Graham

384893[/snapback]

I haven't heard of it Graham, probably because it is french, but I doubt that it could be any worse then that garbagefest Stealth. Actually a friend of mine gave that to me a gag gift for christmas and I was thinking of doing a strictly technical review of it, but didn't feel like watching it again that in depth or getting banned.

385002[/snapback]

According from posts I read from SSHQ the french movie seemed pretty good. They mounted a camera into a centreline pod on a Mirage 2000D. It was controlled by the backseater. Apparently the inflight footage could give Top Gun a run for its money. And unlike stealth, this one was primarily live action footage. It looked marvelous in the trailer I saw.

Although I wish Rafales were used instead of Mirages...who knows? Maybe they were in the movie too.

[Knight26]

Can you give us a link to the trailer?

[Phalanx]

Hey guys, sorry to interupt your discussion on the movie Sky Fighters but have you heard of this movie called Final Mission? It's an old movie I rented from blockbuster video 8 years ago when I was 11 years old. It's like Top Gun with a little dash of crime drama in it. It's about an F-16 fghter pilot that tries to avenge the death of his wingmen after their base general makes them commit suicide by initiating a suicdie code into their special psychoneurological flight helmets. It was pretty decent and I liked the plot to the movie as well. Have you guys also heard of this movie called Stormrunner or Stormrider I think? That movie was pretty good too. It was about an F-117A Nighthawk pilot that tries to rescue his daughter from an evil general. The action scenes were very suspenseful and I would recommend this movie to all of you guys.

[Knight26]

Speaking of old airplane movies, I just heard that Blue Thunder (best helicopter movie ever, period) is being rereleased on DVD in some special edition. Does anyone have any idea what is so special about it, I have the old DVD but wonder what they have done to make the new edition special. Anybody have any info, and I must say I am not impressed by the cover art I have seen, it shows off blue thunder too much, I always prefered the original poster art with the helo hovering right in front and in shadow from the front spotlights.

[Skull Leader]

Because you can't keep a good thread down.

Last time on Aircraft vs Super Thread

Something weird I noticed in the photos Knight26 posted.  The VFA-11 CAG and CO birds have 100 range modex and AA tailcodes, while the regular squadron bird in one of the photos has a modex in the 200 range (242 specifically) and an AG tailcode.  What gives?

384776[/snapback]

VFA-11 has swapped airwings with VFA-103 officially now. This has actually been in the works since right before VF-11 traded in their last tomcat (their retro-bird had the "AA" tailcode on it), it was quite a large mess. Evidently there are still a couple of VFA-103 line birds still floating around with the AA tailcode too, but this is supposed to be straightened out by the time the squadrons go on cruise.

so..

VFA-11= Carrier Air Wing 17 ("AA" tailcode)

VFA-103= Carrier Air Wing 7 ("AG" tailcode)

[David Hingtgen]

Final F-14 flights.

A lot of F-14D's are being flown to museums, here's the unofficial topic about it:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83641

They won't do an airshow demo, but they usually do try to "play it up" for the crowd before they land, with a few passes, rolls, maybe some wing sweeps, etc.

[kalvasflam]

Final F-14 flights.

A lot of F-14D's are being flown to museums, here's the unofficial topic about it:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83641

They won't do an airshow demo, but they usually do try to "play it up" for the crowd before they land, with a few passes, rolls, maybe some wing sweeps, etc.

385437[/snapback]

You know, the epitome of F-14 for me has always been two squadrons, the Jolly Rogers and the Black Aces. I just wish those were the last two retired squadrons...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Can you give us a link to the trailer?

385209[/snapback]

http://www.leschevaliers-lefilm.com/site/main.html

[Skull Leader]

Final F-14 flights.

A lot of F-14D's are being flown to museums, here's the unofficial topic about it:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83641

They won't do an airshow demo, but they usually do try to "play it up" for the crowd before they land, with a few passes, rolls, maybe some wing sweeps, etc.

385437[/snapback]

You know, the epitome of F-14 for me has always been two squadrons, the Jolly Rogers and the Black Aces. I just wish those were the last two retired squadrons...

385446[/snapback]

I didn't care so much about VF-41 personally, but I would've loved it if VF-103 was the final Tomcat squadron. Still, I guess it's fitting that the VF-31 "Tomcatters" be the final group. I hope there's more than one or two of them there when I go to the sunset ceremony in september!

[Skull Leader]

Final F-14 flights.

A lot of F-14D's are being flown to museums, here's the unofficial topic about it:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83641

They won't do an airshow demo, but they usually do try to "play it up" for the crowd before they land, with a few passes, rolls, maybe some wing sweeps, etc.

385437[/snapback]

Gonna come up for the one in Bloomington, IL, Dave? I'll be there camera in-hand!

[ghostryder]

Here's an aerospace nube question:

How effective/viable is a variable geometry wing stealth design? I remember this naval F-22 concept and always wondered how the stealth would be affected if the wings swept during flight. If you look at the VF-0 it looks like wing shape was intended to break up its radar signature, but this naval F-22 concept has straight wings. You figure as long as the wings were kept at an optimal angle during cruise, the wings wouldn't need to be shaped like the VF-0's to be stealthy.

[Phalanx]

Well Ghostryder, I'll try to answer your qusetion to the best of my knowledge:

I don't think that the fighter's stealth ability would be compromised if it used a variable geometry wing design because radar absorbent material is only applied to key areas of the fighter like the air intakes, mainbody, nose and cockpit area and vertical rudders and not on the wings, since they probably don't give off heat saw this information on an episode of Firepower on the Military channel. But quite strangely, a stealth aircraft's stealth capabilty can be compromised if it damaged regardless of where it was hit. If the B-2 were to take in machine gun fire on it's left wing, it will lose it's stealth, all of it. I thought it would lose staelth in that particular part of it's body.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Phalanx

[David Hingtgen]

I would think the main problem would be the wing glove seal area---that's always been a problem just to get smooth airflow over, much less make stealthy.

One of the "problems" with current stealth design is that now the average person simply cannot look at a design and have any clue as to how stealthy it is or isn't. The F-117 is angular simply because that's all the computers could handle--2D objects. The B-2 is so precisely made that if you changed the outer skin shape by an inch or two, it'd have the signature of a 747. A B-2 that's off by one inch would look VERY stealthy to the average person, as it'd look identical---heck, any model kit of the B-2 isn't that accurate, it's within an inch or two.

Having angled tails and intakes are usually a compromise for aerodynamic or production reasons---they're better than "whatever you want" for stealth, but not as good as an optmized curved surface. But it takes a lot of computing power to calculate 3D curves of an entire aircraft.

Also, "type of radar encountered" has a tremendous affect. The Aerofax F-117 book (the best of the early F-117 books, and still among the best) has some great diagrams showing how different shapes reflect radar, and how different radars have different pulse patterns etc.

Basically--you could design a plane that's utterly invisible to one type of radar, yet would show up 100 miles away on another. It's all compromises.

[Phalanx]

One of the "problems" with current stealth design is that now the average person simply cannot look at a design and have any clue as to how stealthy it is or isn't. 

386358[/snapback]

You're right David about this, and it's funny because six years ago when I finally saw all of SK's VF designs for the first time, I noticed that the YF-21/VF-22 looked stealthy physically since the designed was inspired by the YF-23, which uses RAM and stealth construction opposed to the YF-21/VF-22 using an active stealth system. That confused me as I assumed that the YF-21 had physical stealth capabilities rather than using a cloaking device according to it's stats.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Phalanx

[David Hingtgen]

Just a note: RAM is generally used when you cannot make specific parts of the airframe itself stealthy. RAM is kind of a "last resort". It's inferior to a stealthy shape, is expensive, and many types weigh a ton. You could make a stealth F-15 if you put enough RAM on it, but then it'd be so heavy it couldn't fly. (RAM paint is said to be so dense than two men are required to lift a small bucket of it)

F-22 makes use of a lot of structural RAM to make it equal to the YF-23 AFAIK. That was part of Lockheed's promise to the Air Force--they said they could make the YF-22 as stealthy as the YF-22, they'd just need a bit more money to develop new materials. Well, they did, but required a LOT of money and time to do it.

The YF-23 was stealthy because of its shape, with minimal RAM. The F-22 needed it's intakes wings and tails redesigned and coated with or made of RAM to equal the -23.

If the YF-23 had a extra couple billion to develop new high-tech RAM that didn't exist when it flew, it'd be insanely stealthy in a production version.

[kalvasflam]

I tend to think that the swing wing geometry adds in a lot of extra complexity for stealth aircraft. Part of the features on a stealthy vehicle is based on its surface and whether or not it reflects the incoming radar waves back to the radar in question. That's why you see all the funny angles on the F-22s, and F-117s. The RAM (radar absorption material) is another component of stealthy characteristics. The final component (if it exists) would be some type of active cancellation device which destructively interferes with radar waves. (This was talked about, but don't know if such system actually exists, considering that there are lots of difficult issues involved such as frequency agile radars, angles and distances involved, all making active cancellation difficult)

This said, variable wing adds in a lot of components, if you assume two wing configuration on swing wing, there is still a lot of work to do to figure out how stealth characteristics is affected in flight while the wings swing from one position to another.

Angular surfaces aren't as good as people might think by the way, I recall hearing something called a Bistatic radar back a decade ago, which is said to be able to defeat the geometric portion of stealth feature, something about locating transmitter and receiver to different locations. How such a system is supposed to work is beyond me... but that's what I remember hearing about.

Finally, there are some parts of an airplane that give off more signature than other parts. For example, on F-15s, you could count the engine blades if you had a good enough radar, and that was one of the biggest signatures from the front aspect of the plane. (meaning, it was the thing that generated the most radar return)

Edited March 31, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Phalanx]

Just a note: RAM is generally used when you cannot make specific parts of the airframe itself stealthy.  RAM is kind of a "last resort".  It's inferior to a stealthy shape, is expensive, and many types weigh a ton.  You could make a stealth F-15 if you put enough RAM on it, but then it'd be so heavy it couldn't fly.   (RAM paint is said to be so dense than two men are required to lift a small bucket of it)   

386378[/snapback]

I always thought that RAM polymer was a little too excessive but thought that it was added just for better stealth performance. But if I were to make a stealth F-15 and it would be heavy, wouldn't logics suggest that I use lighter alloy for the airframe and lighter materials to create the engines and then finally using RAM polymer for the coating of the airframe? Also are you saying that RAM isn't that good as stealthy shapes because of it's performance since RAM absorbs radar waves opposed to stealthy shapes reflecting them?

Edited March 31, 2006 by Phalanx

[Nied]

I always thought that RAM polymer was a little too excessive but thought that it was added just for better stealth performance. But if I were to make a stealth F-15 and it would be heavy, wouldn't logics suggest that I use lighter alloy for the airframe and lighter materials to create the engines and then finally using RAM polymer for the coating of the airframe? Also are you saying that RAM isn't that good as stealthy shapes because of it's performance since RAM absorbs radar waves opposed to stealthy shapes reflecting them?

386388[/snapback]

The problem with RAM is that it doesn't absorb all radar waves, it absorbs some (and only at specific frequencies) and reflects the rest back. So just painting an F-15 with RAM paint won't make it stealthy, it will certainly reduce the range you can detect it at (which is why most US fighters have some RAM in their paint at this point) but it won't be stealthy. That's part of why you can't just coat a plane in a lot of RAM and make the rest out of really light materials, the other reason is that those really light materials would still affect the plane's radar signature. A common misconception about stealth is that radar waves behave just like light and just bounce off the outer surface of an aircraft like light waves would. In actuality it's a lot more complex than that where even internal structural components can help increase an aircraft's radar return.

[David Hingtgen]

Most aircraft are already as light as they can be. To change to better materials would require redesigning the aircraft. Brand-new F-15's don't weigh any less than 1972 models, despite 30+ years of material advances. One of the few cases I know of to really lighten a plane is the 747-300 to 747-400. It changed to a new alloy for the outer wing skins. But that required a total redesign of every rib, stringer, etc.

RAM isn't as good mainly because of weight/strength/durability issues. Having "aluminum painted grey" that's inherently of a stealthy shape will be lighter and stronger than funky carbon-fiber-epoxy-graphite-whatever RAM skin panels. And regular paint over aluminum is of course lighter than "liquid uranium" RAM paint. Also, aluminum is easily repaired, composites aren't.

[buddhafabio]

From what i heard of stealth technology most of the stealth come from the shape of the aircraft as apposed to the skin. for instance look at the flying wing that the airforce axed in the late 40s to early 50s i read stories where they were able to sneak up on some radar areas while flying it. and that was an aluminum covered bird.

also look at all the test aircraft done for stealth like the tacet blue plane.

and the sr-71 are all great examples of shape affecting radar croass section and all are planes not realy considered stealth.

[David Hingtgen]

A problem when talking stealth is that there is no real definition for stealth. By 1960's standards, a Super Hornet is really stealthy. There's no "magic number" for radar cross section or "detection range by XYZ-type radar" where something is or isn't stealthy. The more I read about the Shornet, the stealthier I think it may be. Some places even credit it approaching the B-1B. Plus AFAIK they're developing stealthy cases for the weapons, and they already have special attachments and fairings to make the pylons stealthy---you can sometimes see some of them when carrying air-to-air missiles. (They go over the sway fittings).

Super Hornets have a special set of "extra" fittings/fairings/RAM that is applied only in times of war. Like many stealth coatings/seals/panels they are hard to maintain in top condition, so they are only used when needed.

So basically, when it needs to, a Super Hornet could have the 'stealthy' panels/seals used, add the stealthy radar fitments to the nose and canopy, add the stealth parts to the pylons, and in the future, use the stealth covers over the weapons.

Plus most planes don't have published numbers, and a lot of "good guesses" are totally wrong.

AFAIK a F-22 beats (and possibly by a wide margin) the F-117 for radar detection, which is a big part of the reason it's being retired.

And then "stealth" usually has people talk only about radar, when heat is another big factor. People often talk about the F-22 for that, for if you're supercruising you've probably got a lot of heat on you leading edges, and the raw heat of the engines heating up the aft fuselage skin. And then there's age-old "radio silence" which is part of the reason for in-air datalinks etc. Stealth is supposed to mean ALL aspects of detection, but usually just means radar in common usage.

[Phalanx]

And then "stealth" usually has people talk only about radar, when heat is another big factor.  People often talk about the F-22 for that, for if you're supercruising you've probably got a lot of heat on you leading edges, and the raw heat of the engines heating up the aft fuselage skin.  And then there's age-old "radio silence" which is part of the reason for in-air datalinks etc.  Stealth is supposed to mean ALL aspects of detection, but usually just means radar in common usage.

386476[/snapback]

Dave, all of this makes me believe that stealth technology is still in it's primitive stages because there hasn't been any noticable advancement in stealth technology since all we have is RAM and the use of angled surfaces and geometrically shaped body parts to act as stealth capabilites. Also, when you say that heat is problem with stealth because their are instruments that can detect heat signatures, this makes me feel that USAF is working on technology that makes aircfraft stealthy in all aspects like you supposedly say, and I agree. I'm aware of the fact the USAF is working on making fighters immune to detection visually, audioally (don't know if thats a real word).

[David Hingtgen]

The F-117 is notably quieter than others, and though I haven't heard one, they say the B-2 is very quiet.

Visually, both the SR-71 and B-2 dump chemicals into their exhaust when on missions so that they don't leave contrails. If you've ever read any "chemtrail" conspiracy theories, that fact is incredibly ironic. Also the B-2 is grey because that's what blends in. If you've ever seen footage, that grey is the perfect color at altitude.

Heat---plenty of theories on how to dissipate it, not sure of any practical implementations. I think most people assume that the engines are the only real concern, as you can't detect anything else at long range. Sure, modern heat-seeking missiles can detect leading edge heat, but only at very short ranges.

Other: there's plenty of WEIRD theories there, like the electro-plasma charged leading edges the B-2's said to have. (that's up there with Mach 6 SR-71's though)

[Skull Leader]

David, I have seen a B-2 fly and they're right, it's VERY quiet. I have no doubt it could make some noise if it had to, but when it did the flyby at Oceana last september, it was definately running silent.

[David Hingtgen]

And there's always the Super Hornet's Whisper Passâ„¢