Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[David Hingtgen]

US planes don't count UK names.

Fury II in the US, Fury III or IV in the UK, depending if SEA Fury counts as well

[F-ZeroOne]

US planes don't count UK names.   

Fury II in the US, Fury III or IV in the UK, depending if SEA Fury counts as well

403468[/snapback]

Oh, so you lot prefer "Atlanta" instead of "Lightning" for the P-38 after all, then?

The Sea Fury, as far as I can tell, would count as the III - there was the biplane, then much later the monoplane, oriiginally an advanced development of the Tempest...

[Coota0]

It's not the name, "Fury" that I dislike, it's the Storm Fury, Sky Fury and Sea Fury thing.

[Phalanx]

It's not the name, "Fury" that I dislike, it's the Storm Fury, Sky Fury and Sea Fury thing.

403481[/snapback]

Yeah when you think about it, the sea, sky, and storm thing make the planes' name sound kinda cheesy.

[Zentrandude]

We need to start a new military branch so we get a fatal fury. I liked that neo geo game.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

what bout stealth fury? it is what it is after all.

[Phalanx]

We need to start a new military branch so we get a fatal fury.  I liked that neo geo game.

403492[/snapback]

That's funny, a fatal fury. Perhaps the new military branch should be one that consists of troops going around and inflicting fatal injuries only to enemy troops rather than killing them like in the ARMY, then the plane would have a purpose of being a kamikaze plane armed with a shatload of bombs since crashing into something would cause "fatal" damage, heh.

[Graham]

More JSF troubles?

Just read the following article on one of the aviation forums I browse: -

Growing Tension Between U.S. and Israel Over F-35 Jet Fighter (May 23, 2006)

The U.S. has indicated that it will not allow Israel to install its own advanced equipment on next generation fighter planes, the F-35, limiting Israel’s technological edge over its enemies.

The F-35, a next generation jet fighter, costing $276.5 billion in development and purchasing costs, is being built in the United States with input from a number of U.S. allies. Though Israel is playing only a small role thus far in developing the plane, it expects to ultimately purchase the jet for the IDF.

According to a report in Ma’ariv, the U.S. is refusing to allow Israel to develop its own guidance, firing, and missile systems for the new aircraft.

That policy will come as a heavy blow to Israel Aircraft Industries which has traditionally has put its ultra-advanced high-tech equipment in fighter jets purchased from the United States.

Many military strategists claim that Israel’s technological superiority over its enemies is derived mainly from the advantage it attains by grafting its own top secret equipment onto the American planes.

This is especially true in cases where the U.S. sells some of its most sensitive and sophisticated equipment to erstwhile allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are potential military adversaries of the Jewish State.

Israeli aeronautic military technology has gained worldwide renown for making U.S. fighter jets much more effective in combat. Souped up Israeli versions of American jets have a clear military advantage over their generic counterparts. U.S. refusal to allow Israel to use its unique technologies on the F-35 may put Israel’s strategic military advantage at risk.

An Israeli air force delegation that recently visited the U.S. and toured the Lockheed Martin plant where the plane is being developed failed to convince American officials of the importance of fitting Israeli weapons systems into the F-35.

As a result, Israel is considering withdrawing from the project altogether. Other countries involved in developing the plane, Britain, Turkey, and Norway, are also reconsidering their involvement due to widespread cost overruns that are running into tens of billions of dollars, and production delays.

A Lockheed spokesman said the company expects to test a prototype by 2008 and deliver the aircraft by 2011. The Pentagon is planning on manufacturing 2500 jets, primarily for the U.S. and British air force."

Heh, seems like the US is going out of it's way, to purposely piss-off every JSF partner nation.

Ya' know I can well see a situation developing, where every other country cancels their orders and the US is the only one that ends up buying the plane, probably at double or triple it's original cost.

JSF or Joint Strife Fiasco, as I've seen it called.

Graham

[Nied]

The problem with the F-35 is that in trying to please so many different parties they're begining to make enough compromises to please no-one.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Nied

[David Hingtgen]

LOL, Joint Strife Fiasco.

I still say we should kill it. Kill it now, and use the money for F-22's. Want an F-16A/early C replacement? F-16E. F-18A/C replacement? Duh. Harrier replacmeent? That's the only thing that really "requires" the JSF. But for a VSTOL alone we'd be much better off with simply a joint US/UK new VSTOL program. JUST for the USMC and RAF/RN.

[Graham]

Heh David, you are slipping. Where's you characteristic "bring back the YF-23"?

I agree, kill the F35, so the US can buy more F-22. I'd also say no export sales of the F-22, so the US can keep it's edge.

UK should develop a navalised Typhoon for it's carriers and buy more regular Typhoons as well and provide more funding for the Tranch 2 & 3 improvements.

As for all the other JSF partner nations, they can choose between the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, Shornet or modenised F-16 or F-15 variants. All very capable planes.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

The YF-23 is so cool nobody else deserves it. It's the anti-JSF. "US only, Air Force only"

Though the YF-23 would make a great carrier plane IMHO. It's already got HUGE wings, so low approach speed. And it already has F-18 main gear on a wide track.

Edited May 30, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Phalanx]

The YF-23 is so cool nobody else deserves it.    It's the anti-JSF.  "US only, Air Force only"

Though the YF-23 would make a great carrier plane IMHO.  It's already got HUGE wings, so low approach speed.  And it already has F-18 main gear on a wide track.

403673[/snapback]

Yeah, DH I wouldn't mind seeing the Blackwidow be optimized for naval use. I think it would pass for a perfect carrier based advanced multirole stealth fighter/bomber. But unfortunately, Grumman panned the baby after it lost the competition with the F-22. Sad to see such a beauty go to waste

[Phalanx]

Heh David, you are slipping. Where's you characteristic "bring back the YF-23"?

I agree, kill the F35, so the US can buy more F-22. I'd also say no export sales of the F-22, so the US can keep it's edge.

UK should develop a navalised Typhoon for it's carriers and buy more regular Typhoons as well and provide more funding for the Tranch 2 & 3 improvements.

As for all the other JSF partner nations, they can choose between the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, Shornet or modenised F-16 or F-15 variants. All very capable planes.

Graham

403666[/snapback]

I also agree Graham, they really should pann the JSF-35. I'm not really fond of it's design and the USAF should go for buying up more F-22's if they want to reach their goal of completlely retiring all F-15's from service event though they plan to use some of the F-15's up to 2028.

I think Japan is the only nation that truly deserves the F-22 but I think Lockheed should grant Mitsubishi Heavy Industries the maunfatcuring license to build F-22J's exclusively for the JASDF. However, I just have some strong feeling that the JASDF may have plans to order 20 or 30 Raptors fresh from out of America and have them reserved for special operations like I stated previosly in the thread.

As for all the JSF partner countries, I think they should settle for the fighters Graham listed, but you know how the other Western countries want our fighter's because they are more advanced than Russia's aircraft and some of the Europeans aircraft as well. I think it's also mainly due to the fact that these Western countries are used to using American aircraft. That's just my 2 cents.

[kalvasflam]

What a nightmare the JSF is....

I doubt if they'll even get 250 planes into full production at the end of the day for the US armed forces.

The US need to provide an export verision of the JSF and leave it alone. It's roundly stupid to think they can just provide the plane and hope people don't modify it afterwards.

I predict if this goes on for too long, the JSF will just turn into another debacle like the -22s. Although I suppose in the case of the Israelis, it's not too likely that they'll source their weapons from someone else.

[Skull Leader]

But unfortunately, Grumman panned the baby after it lost the competition with the F-22. Sad to see such a beauty go to waste

403725[/snapback]

Not necessarily so. Rumor has been around for a bit that they've pulled at least one of the prototypes (or both? I can't remember) back out for more testing, possibly in a strike fighter/bomber role. I can't seem to find anything in print on the 'net about it, but given that David is the YF-23 Super-fan, if anyone knows where to find it, it's him (outside of Tomcats, Viper Zeros, and Su-22s, I'm out of my area of diehard interest)

Edited May 30, 2006 by Skull Leader

[David Hingtgen]

YF-23 #2 is "somewhere", as it's no longer at the Hawthorne Museum. YF-23 #1 has been at Edwards for years, but shuffles around a lot, so it could be either basically mothballed, or being converted into a 2-seater...

[Phalanx]

I think this link below will interest you as this thread has a discussion about the official concept design for the FB-23 blackwidow. I even checked N Grumman's website to confirm it.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread171725/pg1

Edited May 30, 2006 by Phalanx

[Nied]

Abovetopsecret.com? Ugh. Don't hang out there, buncha loony UFO conspiracy nutters. Go to places like F-16.net or the "Real Aviation" section of The Aircraft Resource Center forums.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Nied

[Phalanx]

Thanx for the link Nied. ARC's forums are much better than ABTSC's. I might sign up for an account there.

[Skull Leader]

Thanx for the link Nied. ARC's forums are much better than ABTSC's. I might sign up for an account there.

403873[/snapback]

Just don't start a "which is better?" or "this plane vs. this plane" thread. We *HATE* those kind of discussions over there (it's academically proven that they'll get out of hand there). The moderators take a pretty hard line on stuff like that these days (they even went as far as to completely shut down one of the forums for a few days because people couldn't keep their ignorant thoughts to themselves)

[Nied]

Thanx for the link Nied. ARC's forums are much better than ABTSC's. I might sign up for an account there.

403873[/snapback]

Just don't start a "which is better?" or "this plane vs. this plane" thread. We *HATE* those kind of discussions over there (it's academically proven that they'll get out of hand there). The moderators take a pretty hard line on stuff like that these days (they even went as far as to completely shut down one of the forums for a few days because people couldn't keep their ignorant thoughts to themselves)

403916[/snapback]

Ditto with the F-16.net forums. To paraphrase the Simpsons: "Your forums reward knowledge. Our forums punish ignorance!"

[Nied]

Apparently the name Fury is out for the JSF and Lightning II might be in (though I can't help but think it fits the F-22 better than the F-35).

Name for F-35 will soon take flight

Air Force to choose moniker by June 30; Lightning II is favorite

12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 30, 2006

By RICHARD WHITTLE / The Dallas Morning News

The Air Force chief of staff will name the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by June 30, choosing from six monikers that range from the historic to the arcane, military and industry officials say.

Officials at Lockheed Martin Corp., which largely builds the new multiservice stealth aircraft in Fort Worth, hope President Bush will announce the winning name in a visit to the factory proposed for July 7.

The six finalists being considered by Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, include two based on famed World War II fighters: Lightning II – the odds-on favorite – and Spitfire II.

The P-38 Lightning was built by Lockheed and flown by Richard Bong, the leading American ace of World War II with 40 kills of enemy aircraft.

The Spitfire was the British fighter credited with winning the 1940 Battle of Britain by taking on German fighters and bombers.

The F-35, which got its numerical designation after Lockheed won the contract five years ago, is to make its first flight this fall.

The plane is to be built in three versions, including an F-35B that can take off and land vertically, for three U.S. services and eight allies, including Britain.

The Air Force and Navy both proposed Lightning II, while the Marine Corps advocated Spitfire II, said a U.S. officer familiar with the deliberations.

The Air Force also submitted finalists Cyclone and Reaper, this officer said.

The finalists also include two more curious suggestions – Black Mamba and Piasa.

They were among several submitted by some of the allies that are partners in developing the F-35, industry and military officials said.

Black Mamba

The Black Mamba is one of the longest venomous snakes in the world and one of Africa's most feared. Col. Jaap Reijling, air attaché for the Embassy of the Netherlands in Washington, said his country proposed Black Mamba because the snake and the F-35 have much in common.

Among their shared features, according to a statement from the Dutch F-35 office: "Both can target a prey without being discovered. Both are very fast and lethal but not aggressive by nature."

"I think that is a definite Dutch feature: 'fast and lethal but not aggressive by nature,' " Col. Reijling said with a laugh.

Far less clear, those familiar with the list said, was why Denmark proposed Piasa, the name of a mythical man-devouring bird that appears in the lore of the Illini Indians of Illinois. A call to Denmark's representative for the F-35 program went unanswered.

The Piasa – pronounced "pie-a-saw" – was described in a diary kept by Father Jacques Marquette in 1673, as he and Louis Joliet explored the area near today's Mississippi River town of Alton, Ill.

Winnowed out

A review by Air Force lawyers for potential trademark violations and other objections has winnowed out names proposed by other allies, the U.S. officer said.

Britain proposed Fury, a favorite of many Lockheed and military officials but a name that risked a trademark conflict with the Plymouth Fury auto, this officer said.

Other rejects and the countries or services that offered them include Phantom, Australia; Scorpion, Canada and the Marine Corps; Mustang, Marine Corps; and Skyruler, Turkey.

However they managed to become finalists, Black Mamba and Piasa appear to have little chance of passing Gen. Moseley's muster.

"I don't want to speculate on what he will choose, but Gen. Moseley is a huge military history buff," offered Maj. Glen Roberts, the chief of staff's spokesman.

Given Gen. Moseley's love of military history and the proximity of the Grand Prairie native's hometown to the Lockheed plant, the smart money among those privy to the final list is Lightning II.

That's the name Lockheed originally wanted for its F-22 Raptor, the Air Force's newest stealth fighter.

The Air Force ultimately rejected Lightning II for the F-22, a decision made by one of Gen. Moseley's predecessors, and instead chose Raptor, a name in keeping with the service's late 20th century tradition of naming fighter planes for birds of prey.

The F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F-15 Eagle were the F-22's immediate predecessors.

Importance of heritage

In naming planes, the Air Force takes into account "a lot of different things," Maj. Roberts said, but especially heritage.

"That's a hugely important aspect of where we're going," he said.

Bill Sweetman, technology editor for the defense publishing company Jane's Information Group and author of several books on aircraft, said there were "a lot of different traditions" in naming planes.

The Army traditionally names its helicopters after Indian nations, he noted.

Army pilots fly the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and the AH-64 Apache, for example.

During the early history of fighter planes, the companies that built the aircraft usually named them.

"The former Grumman Co., its fighters all had cat names, going back to the 1940s," he noted.

Those included World War II's F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat, as well as the modern F-14 Tomcat, a swing-wing jet just retired by the Navy.

Another former fighter plane company, Republic, included thunder in the names of its planes. And in the early years of the jet age, Lockheed favored names that included star, according to aerospaceweb.org, a nonprofit Web site run by aerospace engineers and scientists.

Lacking consistency

"There's been no real consistency to it, as far as the Air Force goes," Mr. Sweetman said. The P-51 of World War II was the Mustang, he noted, and the Korean War F-86 was the Sabre.

The Army Air Corps, which became the Air Force after World War II, used P, for pursuit, to designate fighter planes.

The Air Force switched to F for fighter when it was founded in 1948.

No matter what name Gen. Moseley chooses, other services and countries could still call their F-35s by a different name, Maj. Roberts said, "but historically, that has not happened."

But like people, planes don't always go by their given names.

In the Air Force, "very few guys I know call the F-16 the Fighting Falcon," Maj. Roberts said. "It's the Viper."

And Mr. Sweetman observed that the A-10, a ground attack jet still in use, is officially the Thunderbolt II but is affectionately called the Warthog because of its clunky lines.

"It's silly business, really," Mr. Sweetman said, "because the aircraft are very seldom known by their real names."

[David Hingtgen]

God no. Anything slower than a Hornet cannot have the name "Lightning"!!!! And there's NO chance they'll call it the Spitfire.

Of those names, I like Cyclone. (nevermind the obviously UK Hurricane and Tornado). Black Mamba's not bad, but too long. Just "Mamba" would work better, but then few people would know what it was.

Why not Rattler? One of Cobra's best planes, AND it was a VTOL! And with the generation of pilots likely to pilot it, they'd remember it.

PS to Phalanx---also at ARC do not ask any F-22 pilots etc obviously classified stuff, like "how fast can it REALLY go?". They won't answer, and you'll just get 50 other people saying they can't tell you.

PPS---ARC is heavily pro-F-16 and pro-F-14. They will expect you to know what the difference is between an F-16C Block 32 and Block 50, and what truly makes an F-14 a bombcat. Again, F-16.net can help a lot.

[Phalanx]

PS to Phalanx---also at ARC do not ask any F-22 pilots etc obviously classified stuff, like "how fast can it REALLY go?".  They won't answer, and you'll just get 50 other people saying they can't tell you. 

PPS---ARC is heavily pro-F-16 and pro-F-14.  They will expect you to know what the difference is between an F-16C Block 32 and Block 50, and what truly makes an F-14 a bombcat.  Again, F-16.net can help a lot.

403945[/snapback]

Alright, thanx DH, I'll remember not to ask any of those questionss on ARC.

[Lightning]

I say screw Cheney and make new tooling for the F-14, maybe keep making new versions, even one as a trainer (however that's NOT likely to happen, but we can hope, can't we?)

[David Hingtgen]

I lurked there for a year before signing up. Some people have truly scary amounts of knowledge and no tolerance for "beginner" questions. It's worse than any "go ask in the newbie thread, noob" you might see here.

But that is also why there is so much good info there--they REALLY know their stuff.

PS---they will happily explain most anything (unclassified) if you ask nicely. Most of those guys (like me) like nothing more than to show off their knowledge by spouting it out.

[Nied]

I say screw Cheney and make new tooling for the F-14, maybe keep making new versions, even one as a trainer (however that's NOT likely to happen, but we can hope, can't we?)

403952[/snapback]

As much as I am loathe to defend Dick Cheney, the more I think about it, the more I can see a certain logic behind his shooting the F-14 in the face (*badum ching*). It's not hard to imagine some of that fine, brand new tooling for F-14D Super Tomcats falling into the hands of the IRIAF for their Ali Cats. His Jihad against the F-14D is still questionable, but once the decision to buy the Super Hornet was made, destroying the Tomcat tooling was at least logical.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Nied

[David Hingtgen]

Could have at least waited, say, a MONTH OR TWO until the several dozen Tomcats that had already had TF30's removed, waiting for the already-delivered F110's to be installed, were complete.

The TF30-to-F110 conversion required either Calverton's or Oceana's own facilities, and destroying them made those F-14's either engineless and thus scrapped, or have the TF30's re-installed. There's stopping a program, and then stopping a program literally while planes have their access panels open waiting for the guys to get back from lunch to finish the job.

PS---anyone know what happened to the unused F110-GE-400's they had waiting to install? That model is F-14 exclusive, cannot be used for anything else.

[Nied]

Used for spares probably. Either that or they were destroyed (again to avoid them getting into the hands of the IRIAF).

[Coota0]

We need to start a new military branch so we get a fatal fury.  I liked that neo geo game.

403492[/snapback]

Sky Fury, Sea Fury, Storm Fury Unite! When our powers combine we become Fatal Fury!

[Zentrandude]

We need to start a new military branch so we get a fatal fury.  I liked that neo geo game.

403492[/snapback]

Sky Fury, Sea Fury, Storm Fury Unite! When our powers combine we become Fatal Fury!

403973[/snapback]

Heh

its

Sky

Sea!

Storm!

GO Fury!

With your powers combined I am Fatal Fury!

Fatal Fury!, he's our hero,

Gonna take pollution down to zero,

He's our powers magnified,

And he's fighting on the planet side

Fatal Fury!, he's our hero,

Gonna take pollution down to zero,

Gonna help him put us under,

Bad guys who like to loot and plunder

"You'll pay for this Fatal Fury!"

(chanting)

We're the Furyteers,

You can be one too!

'Cause saving our planet is the thing to do,

Looting and polluting is not the way,

Hear what Fatal Fury! has to say:

"THE POWER IS YOURS!!"

edit: hmm I just relized the captain planet lyrics suck.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Zentrandude

[Skull Leader]

As much as I am loathe to defend Dick Cheney, the more I think about it, the more I can see a certain logic behind his shooting the F-14 in the face (*badum ching*).  It's not hard to imagine some of that fine, brand new tooling for F-14D Super Tomcats falling into the hands of the IRIAF for their Ali Cats.  His Jihad against the F-14D is still questionable, but once the decision to buy the Super Hornet was made, destroying the Tomcat tooling was at least logical.

403965[/snapback]

The real beeyatch of the situation is that according to some of the guys that lurk on the Tomcat sunset forums that used to work up at Pax River (where the Tomcats were manufactured, for those who don't understand) said that even though the toolings were ordered DESTROYED, they were carefully dismantled and stored away in the event that congress saw the error of their ways (to be fair, Grumman was talking a LOT of sh!t in their proposals on the hill... they *knew* they had a hot fighter on their hands and they were doing their damnedest to convince congress that they couldn't live without it). I guess someone had to take Grumman down a peg or two, I just hated it that the pentultimate First response/interceptor platform the world has ever known had to suffer because of it.

[Phalanx]

PS---anyone know what happened to the unused F110-GE-400's they had waiting to install?  That model is F-14 exclusive, cannot be used for anything else.

403967[/snapback]

Was the F110-GE-400 model engined actually designed exclusively for the proposed Tomcat 21 concept for that matter?Even though a new version of the F110, the GE F110-GE-129 would originally power the aircraft, giving it the abilty to supercruise, it seems as though that when Grumman panned the Tomcat21 concept design at first, the new GE-400, an updated of the 129 model would probably be used as the F-14D's new engines.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Phalanx

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

PS---anyone know what happened to the unused F110-GE-400's they had waiting to install?  That model is F-14 exclusive, cannot be used for anything else.

403967[/snapback]

Was the F110-GE-400 model engined actually designed exclusively for the proposed Tomcat 21 concept for that matter?Even though a new version of the F110, the GE F110-GE-129 would originally power the aircraft, giving it the abilty to supercruise, it seems as though that when Grumman panned the Tomcat21 concept design at first, the new GE-400, an updated of the 129 model would probably be used as the F-14D's new engines.

403996[/snapback]

129 was an update to the 400. 400 was for the F-14B and D......it was the true solution to the engine problem with the TF-30. TF30 was supposed to be a temporary engine, ATE was to power most of the fleet but when it got canned, the navy was left with no other engine. Till The Ge110 and when the navy smacked F101DFE's into the super tomcat proto and decided the production version(110) would power the B/D's.