Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Nied]

That would be ideal to me too.

1)An intereceptor/fighter with the ability to carry and employ air-to ground ordanance if needed, not necessarily a stealth platform but perhaps with stealthy atributes like the Rafale

2)A multi-role aircraft, jack of all trades, strike-fighter, as capble of carrying bombs as knocking down aircraft, capable of carrying a buddy-pod for tanking

3)A real bomb truck, capable of carrying air-to-air in a pinch, but a dedicated attack jet, WITH a gun, and a pair of sidewinders for self defense (the way an A-10 carries them just to be on the safe side, stealthy, able to be used as tanker with a buddy-pod, and could be used to supplement the helicopters in the anti-submarine role

4)Airborne Radar

5)Cargo aircarft

6)Helicopter- multiple variants or a way to switch quikcly between tasks

A)Anti submarine

B)Spec-ops/rescue optimized

C)Transport/Vertrep

7)Electronic warfare aircraft, I like the E/A-18 and that it carries an organic defensive armament

I could see the Navy looking into a couple of V-22 variants-

A)Transport/Vertrep

B)Spec-ops variant (similar if not Identical to what the USAF wants)

9) Hang on to the C-130s, and go with the upgrade

10)Either upgrade or replace the P-3s, but do not get rid of them completely

Those first three are filled pretty well by the SH/JSF combo (once you hang pylons under the JSF it carries quite an impressive bombload), 4 and 5 would've been filled by the CSA if it hadn't been canceled (though it could always come back), and 6 is being done quite nicely by the various iterations of the Seahawk. 10 is already underway in the form of the Boeing P-8 (737 derivative).

USMC-

1)Hang on to the CH-53X

2)Go with the V-22, but buy a few of the Spec-ops versions the USAF wants

3)AH-1 and UH-1Z

4)Get rid of the F-35B and go with something designed from the start as a VTOL platfrom possibly in concert with the Army (I'll get to this later) and the Royal Navy and RAF

5)Buy what the Navy is using as it's strike fighter

6)Do as the Navy is doing with it's C-130 fleet (see above) but do it for the KC-130s too

7) Go with the E/A-18

Why does the USMC need to have a Spec Ops V-22 variant? That's not really their thing and it seems like needless force duplication. Honestly I don't see why the USMC (or the RN for that matter) really needs STOVL. I say junk the F-35B and have them buy the C model (or the Rhino). Also why does the USMC need to buy the Growler (again needles force duplication).

USAF-

hi-hi/hi-lo/lo-hi/lo-lo mix

2)F-22 for air superiority

3)Upgraded F-15 because the F-22 is expensive, and the F-15 (especially with an upgrade) could still be very useful

4)F-35A stealth in a multi-role aircarft could be very useful, as could the ability to hang munitions on the wings when stealth is no longer needed

5)F-16, with an software/avionics upgrade their usefulness could be greatly extended

6)Maintain the current Special-ops airframes, incorporating the MV-22

7)Upgrade the C-130s

8)More KC-10s they're more efficiant (much easier for multi-service use)

9) I like the bone, but it's mission is no longer there, between the B-2 and B-52 all of the B-1s missions could be met

10) F/A-23- I like the regional bomber idea and I think the F/A-23 would make an excellent replacement for the F-15E and would throw a stealth into the mix

*I would send the F-15Es to the National Guard/Reserve or to special squadrons dedicated to close air support, the addition of stealth to the intrusion mission would in my opinion make the F-15Es quickly obsolete

11) A lightweight point defense fighter, gets airborne fast, optimized for air-to-air

F-15C upgrades are more trouble than their worth it would probably be less expensive over the long run to replace them with Raptors (remember force sustainment costs). I agree that the F-35 could be useful but for what the AF is going to use it for (carting around bombs and once in a while launching an AMRAAM) they could buy the F-35C and get the same results (and save the taxpayer loads of money). KC-10s are big but they can't get into as many places as the '135, besides which they're out of production. Replace the KC-135 with KC-40s (737 variant can share spare parts with Navy P-8s and other Air Force C-40s) or 787/A350 derivatives. B-1 did some pretty impressive stuff in OIF but you're right B-2/B-52 can probably do the job just as well (though a re-engine of the BUFF with 4 CFM56s would greatly reduce life cycle costs). F/A-23 FB-23 whatever you want to call it is expensive and yet another airframe to support, FB-22 would be cheaper but most of its jobs could be split between the F-22 and the still quite useful Strike Eagle. USAF should just get out of the CAS mission since they really want to focus on fast jets, I say let them. 11) What? Point defence interceptors are an anachronism in this day and age of high powered SAM batteries, we'd be better served by a low cost "aerial squad car" that could fly Noble Eagle missions (instead of sending multi-million dollar Raptors to baby sit airliners). Hang a pair of Sidewinders and a .50 cal off a Learjet and call it a day.

USA

1)Hang onto the Apache, but get rid of the Longbow

2)Replace the OH-58 with a small helicopter (Hueys are not small!), put the IR sensor/ Laser Designator on a mast not under the chin, and lightley arm it (gun pod, hellfires, zunnis)

3)Go with the MV-22 to supplement the 160th and a no special-ops version to supplement regular Army aviation

4)New avionics for the CH-47 while looking for a replacement

5)Blackhawks stay

6)I know this is against the Keywest agreement, but I believe the Army deserves it's own fixed wing close air support, a joint program with the USMC would be ideal or until the new aircraft is ready the A-10 could fill the gap, but a forward deployable CAS aircraft under Army control, flown by an Army aviator would in my opinion greatly improve CAS for the Army

1) Again: What? Why gimp the Apache if you don't have to. 2) The OH-58 is becoming an anachronism (as is the Comanche that was going to replace it), most of it's work can be done by Predators or Fire scouts and what can't will be done by the ARH. Gotta agree with you on 6) (also see my above comments it the USAF section) in fact the only reason the USAF keeps stringing the A-10 along is because they know that if they junked it the Army would probably get a repeal of the Key west agreement. Give em A-10s: let the USAF focus on the strategic and tactical let the Army do it's own CAS.

[Lynx7725]

Again, flight sim experiences only, bear that in mind.

The P-38 in the pacific was a good plane. Can't turn worth dip but it actually is a very stable and sweet platform, and in B&Z it's actually quite good. It's contra-rotating props actually makes the plane very stable in sims, no noticable pull either way.

This contrasts very sharply with the Corsair, which I recall torquing me into the water once (or nearly did) after a cat launch. Nasty nasty stuff (The "Ensign Eliminator" at work...).

If I were to fly in European Sims though, I would probably go for Tempest/ Typhoon (for the firepower and the general handling) and the Dora-9 (same). I don't really have much love for the USAF fighters in Europe, as most of them seems to be prima donna planes designed for high-altitude work and not mucking in the mud as I tend to do. (The Jug does that but it's a huge tub.. doesn't work for me either.)

I would actually avoid the ME-262. It has a great speed advantage but it handled like a pig; at altitude and with the R4M it makes a big mess of bomber boxes, but it turns like a truck and has difficulties coming up and down at low altitudes.

Talking about busting bomber boxes, I recall the Bf-109 was able to fit mortars on them. Those things are difficult to aim and difficult to hit with, but damn, they are really fun to use, and if you score a hit on one B-17 you end up taking out a couple in the blast radius.

[Nied]

Well Redssun 1, IMHO, I believe that  if you throw the F-15S/MT ACTIVE Eagle + in the mix, I believe that this variant wouldn't be helpless in A2A combat either since it boasts canards and 2-D thrust vectoring nozzles just like the SU-30's. However, the F-15S/MT was just a testbed for thrust vectoring done by NASA but I think they cancelled the production for it. Not sure of the reasons why but if it were to be produced it would logically phase out the original F-15C's or even better, have all existing F-15's converted into these variants.

387780[/snapback]

F-15S/MTD were just technology demonstrators to validate stuff that was due to go into the ATF. That and the fact that they were insanely expensive and hard to build (if laid all of the welds in each of the MTD's nozzles end to end they'd be over a mile long).

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Ya know guys I don't think the F-15C is a helpless fighter at all. I mean its still great. Its still got some advantages over the 4th gen russian planes. Its not like every eagle driver would turn and squeal on site of an enemy SU-30MKI. The F-15C pilot would just have to avoid turning with the MKI and hope to outdive him. Also the ease of use in US fighters factors into higher SA for the eagle pilot. As Skull leader more or less just proved in a VFA-103 pilot's knife fighting assesment between a super bug and a raptor, the super bug ain't helpless against the raptor either close in.

The media is trying to make it seem like the eagle has no chance in hell to survive and confrontation with updated sukhois/Migs. I think the contrary.

And guys....stripped of CFT's, does the F-15E make a good knife fighter....as in just as good as the F-15C? The E has higher thrust engines...and I assume the CFT's when removed provide a much lighter airframe.

[Coota0]

I thought the Marines intended to replace the Cobra with...well, an upgraded Cobra?  More specifically, the "Viper"?  Composite 4-blade rotors, improved avionics and targeting, etc, etc.  Supposed to be an even more-improved version of the SuperCobra design? 

387771[/snapback]

You're right the AH-1Z (I referred to at as the Zulu because of the "Z" designation) is to replace the current Cobras

[Coota0]

2) USAAC generals that believed there was no need to have escorts

State your source on this one. Other than the early model P-38s, there was no Allied fighter in the ETO with the range to ecsort the bombers to their destination until the P-51Ds enter service.

I'll have to find it, I know a couple of 8th Air Force Generals (Maybe Mitchell) had been qouted as saying that the B-17s were capable of defending themsleves if the bombers flew in a "Box" formation.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I thought the Marines intended to replace the Cobra with...well, an upgraded Cobra?  More specifically, the "Viper"?  Composite 4-blade rotors, improved avionics and targeting, etc, etc.  Supposed to be an even more-improved version of the SuperCobra design? 

387771[/snapback]

You're right the AH-1Z (I referred to at as the Zulu because of the "Z" designation) is to replace the current Cobras

387797[/snapback]

Whoa...awsome pic! Could it carry 6 winders at a time? Also I did hear that later model cobras can be flown from the front seat and that the back seat also has weapon firing controls as well. I always found it intriguing that most 2 seat tandem copters have gunner in front and pilot in back.

Also has anyone toyed with the idea of a jet engined helicopter rather than a rotor blade? I always envisioned that as the next step much how propellers moved way for the jet engine in fighters. I got a couple designed if any of you want to see.

[Phalanx]

Please, do Shin, I'm interested in your drawing talent!

Edited April 5, 2006 by Phalanx

[Coota0]

Nied,

On the Navy stuff I knew some of the missions/jobs I listed already had frames doing them, I was just putting it down as a place holder.

The Marines want the EW aircraft so that they can send in their own strike packages without asking for support from the Navy, as it stands now the Navy will be flying the E/A-18 while the USMC keeps the EA-6 it sounds like a waste to me when both could fly the same aircraft and use the same training facilities.

As for the Spec-ops V-22, it's the ability to put a Force Recon team, Seal team or whatever the Marines are calling the guys they've chopped to SOCOM deep behind enemy lines with minimal risk without asking the Air Force or Army for a ride and do it directly from the MEU(SOC). I say minimal risk because they could use one of the basic V-22s but that's not what they're optimized for. As for the F-35B, the Marines want a S/VTOL aircraft that they can deploy to forward areas with minimal construction and aboard the LHA/LHDs with the MEU(SOC)

As for the F-15s, I was thinking nothing more complicated than software upgrades.

As for the Point Defense Bird, something cheaper than F-15s and F-22s to fly CAP up and down the U.S. coasts and to intercept aircraft coming into U.S. Air Space.

As for the Apache

1)They're not designed as scouts

2)They're expensive if you lose them (scouts get

knocked down) Scouts are meant to be cheaper aircraft

3)Heavy workload, going from what used to be a 4 man job to a 2 man job without a significant technological leap

4)Those two extra set of eyes in the scout are an advantage (less fratricide)

5)IMO it's important to have a crew specifically trained as scouts

[reddsun1]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the B-29 crews were lucky. They had their own set of problems to deal with, but just as bad in its own way. Among other things, strain on engines from long missions and climbing to high operating alt's meant a high risk of ditching at sea--not a pretty scenario, I'm sure. one of the biggest benefits/blessings of the island hopping campaign was acqusition of emergency bases for the bomber crews.

I don't think it could be said Japan was "saving" its pilots for the impending invasion though. If anything, there was a desperate shortage of expeienced veteran pilots. Didn't US troops stumble upon Japan's "underground air force" shortly after the surrender? Factories, literally dug into the sides of mountains? IIRC, there were planes to [conceivably] keep fighting the war, but a great deal were unfinished due to material/parts shortages, and those that were completed sat without experienced crews to fly them. Much like the Lufwaffe in the closing days of the War, Japan's air force pilots were increasingly younger and greener, due to lack of extensive training time, or veterans to help pass on their experience.

[Coota0]

Whoa...awsome pic! Could it carry 6 winders at a time?  Also I did hear that later model cobras can be flown from the front seat and that the back seat also has weapon firing controls as well. I always found it intriguing that most 2 seat tandem copters have gunner in front and pilot in back. 

387803[/snapback]

Both the Apache and Cobra can be flown or have weapons employed from either seat, it's just that the front cockpit is optimized for weapons and the rear for flight.

[Coota0]

Double Post

Edited April 5, 2006 by Coota0

[reddsun1]

Well Redssun 1, IMHO, I believe that  if you throw the F-15S/MT ACTIVE Eagle + in the mix, I believe that this variant wouldn't be helpless in A2A combat either since it boasts canards and 2-D thrust vectoring nozzles just like the SU-30's. However, the F-15S/MT was just a testbed for thrust vectoring done by NASA but I think they cancelled the production for it. Not sure of the reasons why but if it were to be produced it would logically phase out the original F-15C's or even better, have all existing F-15's converted into these variants.

387780[/snapback]

Yes, I always liked that version. One of those that'll likely go down in history in the "what-if" column of potentially great planes that never got the green light, much like the F-20 Tigershark, or the "cranked-arrow wing" Falcon.

As far as jet-engined helicopters? I dunno, I guess if you took away the rotor, you'd be making a different animal out of it. There have been prototype designs that used pusher-props. There's the Cheyenne that vaguely resembles the attack copters in Patlabor. Big sum-bitch, though.

Oh yeah, AH-1Z kicks arse. Always liked the HueyCobra--ever since I had that GI Joe "Dragonfly" as a kid...

Edited April 5, 2006 by reddsun1

[Mislovrit]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the B-29 crews were lucky.  They had their own set of problems to deal with, but just as bad in its own way.  Among other things, strain on engines from long missions and climbing to high operating alt's meant a high risk of ditching at sea--not a pretty scenario, I'm sure.

The sighting systems was nearly worthless as the designers didn't know the the contours of the planes is distorted (right word???) from flying low to high attiude.

one of the biggest benefits/blessings of the island hopping campaign was acqusition of emergency bases for the bomber crews. 

One positive benefit from a greatest military blunder in the war. Attacking islands with little or no staregic value while skipping high value undefended islands only to attack after they've been heavily fortified.

I don't think it could be said Japan was "saving" its pilots for the impending invasion though.  If anything, there was a desperate shortage of expeienced veteran pilots.  Didn't US troops stumble upon Japan's "underground air force" shortly after the surrender?

Yup and and it show U.S. casualty estimates to be woefully naive and optimistic had Operation Olympic occured.

Factories, literally dug into the sides of mountains?  IIRC, there were planes to [conceivably] keep fighting the war, but a great deal were unfinished due to material/parts shortages, and those that were completed sat without experienced crews to fly them.  Much like the Lufwaffe in the closing days of the War, Japan's air force pilots were increasingly younger and greener, due to lack of extensive training time, or veterans to help pass on their experience.

387807[/snapback]

All of the above was suppose to send an overwhelming number of kamikazes at the landing forces, targetting mainly the transports.

[kalvasflam]

My problems with the longbow, 1) They're not desined as scouts

                                            2)They're expensive if you lose them (scouts get 

                                                lost)

                                            3)Heavy workload, going from what used to be a 4 man job to a 2 man job without a signifigant technological leap

Comanche was never meant to replace the cobra or Apache, it would have suplememnted the Apaches (even replacing some Apache battalions) and to be used as a heavily armed scout much like the Longbow, but the Commanche had the signifigant technologically leap as well as stealth to give the two man crew th ability to do the scout and attack missions as well as giving it more surviability than the Apache. As far as I know it was never even considered as a AH-1 replacement the Corps wanted the Zulu.

387742[/snapback]

Yeah, the Comanches were probably a replacements for the Kiowas, and to a lesser extent the Cobras. But I thought the Marines would've been better off with Apaches.

I never thought Longbows were scouts though, the radar has its advantages... the issue with Apaches was always where you'd use them. In desert storm, Apaches were sent in deep against second echelons of Iraqi armor after it was decided that tanks were doing a faster job than the choppers. But in Iraqi Freedom, the Apaches got caught with lots of small arms fire and suffer significant damages. The role against armor is now somewhat less relevant than it had been at the height of the cold war.

[Nied]

The Marines want the EW aircraft so that they can send in their own strike packages without asking for support from the Navy, as it stands now the Navy will be flying the E/A-18 while the USMC keeps the EA-6 it sounds like a waste to me when both could fly the same aircraft and use the same training facilities.

Here I had been thinking that the VMAQ squadrons had been dis-established. I don't see why they shouldn't be though. The Navy has jammers, and is the Marines need jamming the General or admiral in charge will assign a jammer. That's the reality of modern joint operations, it doesn't matter which branch is doing the mission, just that its getting done. Of course if that branch doesn't like doing the mission that's another story (see USAF and CAS).

As for the Spec-ops V-22, it's the ability to put a Force Recon team, Seal team or whatever the Marines are calling the guys they've chopped to SOCOM deep behind enemy lines with minimal risk without asking the Air Force or Army for a ride and do it directly from the MEU(SOC). I say minimal risk because they could use one of the basic V-22s but that's not what they're optimized for.

The biggest difference between the MV-22 (Marines) and the CV-22 (AF) is an extra fuel tank on the CV. Considering that the Marines would most likely be launching from an LAU that doesn't seem to be too big of a problem.

As for the F-35B, the Marines want a S/VTOL aircraft that they can deploy to forward areas with minimal construction and aboard the LHA/LHDs with the MEU(SOC)

They want it but I don't know how much they need it. The Marines have got along quite well for years with CTOL aircraft, I can't imagine they wouldn't continue to do great with the F-35C.

As for the F-15s, I was thinking nothing more complicated than software upgrades.

Which wouldn't get you a lick more of airframe life, nor would it reduce the cost of ownership. You need either re-built or new built aircraft if they're going to last any amount of time, and once you factor in the extra costs of maintaining those older airframes, the Raptor comes out costing the same but with much more capability.

As for the Point Defense Bird, something cheaper than F-15s and F-22s to fly CAP up and down the U.S. coasts and to intercept aircraft coming into U.S. Air Space.

Who's? Like I said most of the CONUS operations you're going to see over the next few decades are going to be Noble Eagle style 9/11 prevention operations. Like I said take a Learjet hang a sidewinder and a .50 caliber machine gun under the wings, put a bunk in the cabin and give it IFR capability and then have em fly racetrack over the major cities for 12 hours a stretch. That would be far cheaper than any dedicated fighter, and far more useful to today's climate.

As for the Apache

1)They're not designed as scouts

2)They're expensive if you lose them (scouts get

knocked down) Scouts are meant to be cheaper aircraft

3)Heavy workload, going from what used to be a 4 man job to a 2 man job without a significant technological leap

4)Those two extra set of eyes in the scout are an advantage (less fratricide)

5)IMO it's important to have a crew specifically trained as scouts

No they're not scouts, and while they've been pressed into that service while while the ARH and the firescout come online they weren't bought for that purpose. What's more UAVs can do the job even better than a dedicated scout (instead of having four guys to look at computer screen in the Helicopter while being shot at you can have 12 guys sitting safe in an air conditioned trailer look at that same screen).

Edited April 5, 2006 by Nied

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

One of my favorite WWII designs, even though it never got a chance to be proven as a fighter.  Would have been interesting to see what kind of performance it would have been capable of.  Only major issues I could think of seem to be rearward vision [seems less than ideal in that configuration].  I'm also surprised that resources say the IJN placed orders for the model--seems like it would have been problematic to make that tall, narrow landing gear--esp the nose--suitably rugged for carrier operations?

387771[/snapback]

I don't think they intended it to be flown off carriers. The IJN had more land based planes then carriers based planes at any one time anyway.

As for the non-contra rotating P-38. England wanted ease of maintenance and they were already using the same engines for the P-40s as well.

[Phalanx]

I don't know if somebody discussed this in Shin's previous thread, and feel free to let me know if somebody did, but here's some information about the mysterious Aurora plane.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html

From what I heard, people say that it's a radical redesign of the original mysterious F-19 Ghostrider(unofficial name taken from Tom Clancy's Red Dawn) fighter concept that never saw combat service. But there is some speculation that this fighter can do Mach 6.

Here's two concept designs for the original F-19.

http://www.kitparade.com/features02/f19da_1.htm

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/future/f19/f-19.htm

Edited April 5, 2006 by Phalanx

[Garou Kuroryuu]

I don't know if somebody discussed this in Shin's previous thread, and feel free to let me know if somebody did, but here's some information about the mysterious Aurora plane.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html

From what I heard, people say that it's a radical redesign of the original mysterious F-19 Ghostrider(unofficial name taken from Tom Clancy's Red Dawn) fighter concept  that never saw combat service. But there is some speculation that this fighter can do Mach 6.

Here's two concept designs for the original F-19.

Aurora? F-19? fighter?

Mmmm, I believe you're mixing stuff here.

Yes, I've read about the Aurora. No, I haven't read about the F-19.

What I'm sure thou, is that I had NEVER heard of the presumably Aurora black project being a fighter plane.

All of the books and sources that mention the Aurora (that I've read) state that it would be an SR aicraft, basically the succesor for the SR-71 Blackbird, but never anything close to it being a fighter.

[Nied]

I don't know if somebody discussed this in Shin's previous thread, and feel free to let me know if somebody did, but here's some information about the mysterious Aurora plane.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html

From what I heard, people say that it's a radical redesign of the original mysterious F-19 Ghostrider(unofficial name taken from Tom Clancy's Red Dawn) fighter concept  that never saw combat service. But there is some speculation that this fighter can do Mach 6.

Here's two concept designs for the original F-19.

http://www.kitparade.com/features02/f19da_1.htm

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/future/f19/f-19.htm

387929[/snapback]

F-19 doesn't exist, never did. The way the F-19 myth got started is that someone noticed the lack of an F-19 between the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-20 Tigershark. Since there was supposed to be some super secret stealth fighter being flown by the Air Force at the time, people made the logical assumption that it must be called the F-19. Of course that was wrong, Northrup (designers of the F-20) wanted a really cool designation for their brand new futuristic re-tread of an old fighter and asked if they could skip F-19. Never one to pass up an opportunity to make money for a contractor (Eisenhower might have had something there) the DoD obliged.

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon worked very hard to push the whole F-19 myth to help cover the F-117, very similar to how they pushed that "switchblade" article in PopSci to misdirect people from the Bird of Prey. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Aurora project turns out to be something similar.

[Phalanx]

Aurora? F-19? fighter?

Mmmm, I believe you're mixing stuff here.

Yes, I've read about the Aurora. No, I haven't read about the F-19.

What I'm sure thou, is that I had NEVER heard of the presumably Aurora black project being a fighter plane.

All of the books and sources that mention the Aurora (that I've read) state that it would be an SR aicraft, basically the succesor for the SR-71 Blackbird, but never anything close to it being a fighter. 

388002[/snapback]

Well I apologize for notgiving you the information earlier but here's a link to the story

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f19.html

There may be a possiblity that the Aurora may be a next generation successor to the SR-71 after all, but due to the aircraft's size it makes it look more like a fighter or who knows, maybe the Aurora will fufill both roles of being a reconaissance fighter!

Like I said, those two pics of the F-19 were presumable concept designs of it. But the whole project was panned back in the 80's and we may never see the F-19 at all, in the form of one of those designs. I knew that the F-19 were never real but speculationsand rumors were what honestly made me feel more conviced that it was real. I remember back in summer of 1997, my father and I were watching some show on TLC that talked about the Aurora fighter and I felt that it was estimated to likely enter service in the 2020's or 2030's. I think that either the Aurora project has been cancelled long time ago or stiill under construction unitl Lockheed/Skunkworks perfects the design.

P.S Nied, are you talking about the switchblade fighter from that movie "I Spy"?

Edited April 5, 2006 by Phalanx

[kalvasflam]

"F-19, what F-19? We don't have an F-19 at all. We decided to skip that designation. " So said the USAF spokesman. All of which is true, and then all the nutjobs and psychos rush out and start pontificating about how the USAF is lying and there must be an F-19. Then when the truth comes out... the USAF lied, and denied there was an F-19, they deliberately misled us with the truth. We really wanted to know about the F-117, which we didn't know about at the time.

Heh, funny stuff. But it is entertaining how myths and fantasies from almost two decades ago still pull people in today.

Heh heh, actually, the truth is, the F-19 does exist, it is built on UFO technology, and is truly stealthy in the visible spectrum. The base weapons system is also alien in origin, it is a high powered energy weapon with range in excess of 5000 km in the atmosphere. The aircraft is space capable, and can attain escape velocity without aid of boosters. It is a two man aircraft, and has been operational since 1997. The -A variant also carries hyperkinetic muntions, but currently, a -V variant is being tested with the capability of transforming into a humanoid form. The unit is a part of the black budget costing the American tax-payers roughly $20 billion a year, with the ultimate goal of fighting against giant space aliens. The project is top secret, and has a monthly rotating code name, one of which happened to be Aurora, but other code names also included Borealis, Northern Lights, Southern Lights, and Barney Rubble (who was incidentally the name of one of the original test pilot recruited from the town of Bedrock, and yes, he has a wife named Betty) There will be a special on this top secret military program on the Discovery channel in 2008, check your local listings.

Yes, the last paragraph is a joke. Really, I swear, it's a joke.... not the truth... as far as you know it.

Edited April 5, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Knight26]

Dang it Kalvasflam I told you not to tell people about those projects, now I have to hunt you down.

[kalvasflam]

Dang it Kalvasflam I told you not to tell people about those projects, now I have to hunt you down.

388031[/snapback]

You want to hunt me down? Ok, Knight26, you're history, I just retasked the orbital hyper kinetic cannon to your bio signature. The headlines tonight will read: "tragedy, local man struck dead by small meteorite."

Buh-bye...

And besides, I didn't tell people anything about Fred Flintstone or Dino.... Uh never mind, pretend none of you heard that.

Edited April 5, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Zentrandude]

Dang it Kalvasflam I told you not to tell people about those projects, now I have to hunt you down.

388031[/snapback]

You want to hunt me down? Ok, Knight26, you're history, I just retasked the orbital hyper kinetic cannon to your bio signature. The headlines tonight will read: "tragedy, local man struck dead by small meteorite."

Buh-bye...

And besides, I didn't tell people anything about Fred Flintstone or Dino.... Uh never mind, pretend none of you heard that.

388037[/snapback]

now the unit is going after you then after the plane ride they kick the pilot out of his bird to clean up.

[Warmaker]

Ah, nevermind, someone already posted the same thing I was going to.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Warmaker

[David Hingtgen]

Only later F-15E's have the higher power engines--1991 and later I think. (Same time as when they got the Type V CFT's with the auxiliary scoops). The original F-15E (1986 to 90) has the same engines as the F-15C and Type IV CFT's.

Basic F-15E airframe is about 3,000lbs heavier than a C's IIRC.

[Skull Leader]

Only later F-15E's have the higher power engines--1991 and later I think.  (Same time as when they got the Type V CFT's with the auxiliary scoops).  The original F-15E (1986 to 90) has the same engines as the F-15C and Type IV CFT's. 

Basic F-15E airframe is about 3,000lbs heavier than a C's IIRC.

388062[/snapback]

And the new export models have even more powerful engines yet (GE F-110s) That makes, to my knowledge, 4 different planes that engine has been used in:

B-1 Lancers (4 each)

F-16 Variants (some of them)

F-14 Super Tomcats (both B and D models)

F-15SG Strike Eagles

[David Hingtgen]

The B-1B has F101's, not F110's. Though the F110 is based on the 101. So is the 118 (B-2 engine). Prototype F-14B had F101's as well.

Just for people reading the thread, the following F-16's have F110's:

C and D block 30, 40, 50, 50+

E and F block 60

And don't forget the F-15K with the SG's.

Edited April 6, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Coota0]

2) USAAC generals that believed there was no need to have escorts

State your source on this one. Other than the early model P-38s, there was no Allied fighter in the ETO with the range to ecsort the bombers to their destination until the P-51Ds enter service.

I'll have to find it, I know a couple of 8th Air Force Generals (Maybe Mitchell) had been qouted as saying that the B-17s were capable of defending themsleves if the bombers flew in a "Box" formation.

387799[/snapback]

How about these (they're the first ones I came across)

The U.S.A.A.F believed unescorted bombers flying in well-designed formations could penetrate deeply over enemy skies.

From Here

The “Bomber Mafiaâ€

By the time of the move to Maxwell, the creation of doctrine had become the official goal of the vast majority of staff and students. There grew up a small circle of brilliant leaders whose names would figure prominently in the history of the service and who would retrospectively be called the “bomber mafia.†They included many important future general officers, including Muir S. Fairchild, Harold Lee George, Haywood S. Hansell Jr., Laurence S. Kuter, Robert Olds, Kenneth N. Walker, Robert M. Webster, and Donald Wilson.

The bomber mafia’s doctrine—known as the “industrial web theoryâ€â€”centered on use of high altitude, daylight, precision bombing of an enemy’s industrial infrastructure. This type of bombing mission, they said, would not require fighter escort—an important claim, given that there were at the time no fighters with the necessary range.

Check out section two of this Adobe.

Apparently Mitchell's ideas (as were the doctrine created by his students) were based heavily on (or at least inspired by) the theories and writings of Giulio Douhet.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Coota0

[Noyhauser]

Check out section two of this Adobe.

Apparently Mitchell's ideas (as were the doctrine created by his students) were based heavily on (or at least inspired by) the theories and writings of Giulio Douhet.

388135[/snapback]

Mitchell was well acquainted with Douhet's work, but he was also quite close to Air Marshall Hugh Trenchard, the third of the major thinkers of strategic airpower that people cite. Douhet was the most radical. He believed that Strategic bombing should be conducted against cities, and high explosive bombs being mixed in with gas. This would carve the heart out of the enemy. Trenchard was more direct, he believed that bombers should target;

“iron and coal mines, steel mills, chemical production facilities, explosive factories, miscellaneous armament industries, aero engines and magneto works, submarine and shipbuilding works, large gun foundries, and engine repair shops"

He chose many of these targets because of their large size. His contemporary, Harris, who came lead bomber command, reverted to bombing civilian centres that were involved in war production. This was partly because of the operational limitations placed on the Bomber Command. Flying at night, and with few instrument aids, really the only target they would ever hit was large population centers, and "Bomber" Harris went for it.

Mitchell stood in the middle. He at times supported bombing civilians, and at other times didn’t. There were other differences between the authors. Douhet believed that the bomber would always get through, and therefore the first act was for one country to attack another’s bombers first, to preemptively remove this threat, before going on to attack cities. Mitchell believed that fighters were useful, and had a role as well. His influence on a whole generation of bombing theorist undoubtedly contributed to the fateful decision by the USAAF to attempt daylight percision bombing against German targets. In reality, the USAAF was carrying out a essentially British bombing theory, except that the British were too hesitant to take the grevious losses the americans were setting themselves up for.

However all three were generally off about the nature of Bombing during the Second World War. In his seminal volume “The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy†Lawrence Freedman refers to strategic bombing as a thoroughly discredited theory in 1945 that was rescued by the invention of the atomic bomb. Strategic bombing was viewed in 1945 as insufficient to delivering complete victory that its proponents claimed. 5 years of strategic bombing did little to dent the German military production; in some cases it actually stimulated it (except in oil production). Conventional Strategic bombing was not seen as a decisive factor in pushing Japan to surrender, conversely, the USAAF was literally running out of targets to hit, before it dropped the nuclear bomb. With the advent of the nuclear age, strategic bombing advocates had a weapon that could be used to inflict the grievous harm they needed to make their strategies successful. This is why their works endure.

A thinker that was closer to the mark however (but is far more obscure today) was British Air Marshall John Slessor, who wrote Airpower and Armies He had a very nuanced strategy, where airpower could be used against industrial centres, but also against transport infrastructure, and close air support roles. This all depended on the current state of war, whether it be a period of rest, or attack. His thoughts were realized in WWII. The Pre-Normandy aerial campaign to interdict the German’s ability to re-enforce its forces in the west of France was viewed as the best example of this. When I read Slessor for the first time last year, I was struck by how useful his words are today. I think Douhet, Mitchell and Trenchard (especially Douhet) should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Their work has only limited application to the world today. Slessor on the other hand showed a remarkable understanding of warfare, and if you're interested in bombing theory, you should read it.

A great piece that is accessable to all is Phillip Meilinger's edited volume Paths of Heaven: the Evolution of Airpower theory. You can download the PDF Here A really good contemporary book is Benjamin Lambeths' The transformation of American Airpower. If you read it side by side with slessor's book, you'll see remarkable similarities between the two works, even if they are 60 years apart.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Noyhauser

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Boys I have quite possibly found thee BEST Tomcat site on the web aside from MATS.

tomcat-sunset.org

Its got MANY pilots that flew the thing, including some from the first squad...VF-1 Wolfpack! So many topic threads in its forum! Tom Cooper posts there as well. And I did say Dave Venlet there as well(one of the black ace crews who shot down SU-22s in 81)

You can find paraphanelia including newspaper scans from its introduction in the early 70s, accounts of flying it, analytical descriptions from both F-14 and non F-14 pilots concerning its ACM and DACM capabilities, accounts from IRIAF pilots and how the current IRIAF is now with their tomcats, and such.

So far from what I read Iran has a couple tomcat aces with the leading ace scoring between 10-15 kills....( think its listed as 12.....)

But tom Cooper did a bunch of research....so I do trust his work. VERY interesting stuff. Its also very interesting to hear what all the pilots had to say.

[Phalanx]

Nice F-14 site you found for us all Shin. Those pics were very authentic and those interviews with the pilots were very captivating. Once again, thanx for finding this site because I'm a die hard fan of the F-14 just like all of you guys.

[Skull Leader]

Boys  I have quite possibly found thee BEST Tomcat site on the web aside from MATS.

tomcat-sunset.org

Its got MANY pilots that flew the thing, including some from the first squad...VF-1 Wolfpack! So many topic threads in its forum!  Tom Cooper posts there as well. And I did say Dave Venlet there as well(one of the black ace crews who shot down SU-22s in 81)

You can find paraphanelia including newspaper scans from its introduction in the early 70s, accounts of flying it, analytical descriptions from both F-14 and non F-14 pilots concerning its ACM and DACM capabilities, accounts from IRIAF pilots and how the current IRIAF is now with their tomcats, and such.

So far from what I read Iran has a couple tomcat aces with the leading ace scoring between 10-15 kills....( think its listed as 12.....)

But tom Cooper did a bunch of research....so I do trust his work. VERY interesting stuff. Its also very interesting to hear what all the pilots had to say.

388628[/snapback]

I'm a member there as well (as well as a paying member of the Tomcat and Tailhook associations). Since I plan to be there in September for the ceremony I've tried to stay on top of things there.

While Tom Cooper offers up information that no one else has, be careful with it. He's going by what the government of Iran has TOLD him (and what few pilots he was able to interview have heard). He has next to no official paper evidence to back up any of his claims. Some of it may be true, other parts of it may not. There is an infamous "3-way" Phoenix missile kill he speaks of where an Iranian Tomcat managed to splash 3 MiGs with one AIM-54. The circumstances and possibilities are a near mathmatical impossibility (I'd give it about a 2% chance). He claims that almost their entire run of tomcats (minus those that Iraq managed to shoot down and a few accidents) are still completely functional. I take issue with this because just after the new year, I was made privy to the unclassified parts of an intelligence threat-assesment briefing held at McConnell AFB where basically the US reviews pretty much anything and everything it has to fear around the world. In that briefing, it was said that the US has eyes watching approximately 20 functioning Tomcats left in Iran. The rest are either mothballed or have been parted out. At any rate, they don't have the means to fly more than 20 or so without some parts-swapping between airframes.

His book on Iranian Tomcats is awesome, it's just about the only resource available for Ali-Cats, but beware his facts and figures, because he's the only one spouting them and they don't match up at all with what pretty much every other government sees.

[David Hingtgen]

Hmmn, Tomcat Sunset has a lot more stuff than when I last checked. Of course, I checked within about 6 hours of it first going up...