Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[David Hingtgen]

I only just now downloaded the high-res versions, and noticed in the photo with the Shornets and B-2 at the bottom, you can easily make out the Diamondbacks CAG, and I think VFA-27 CAG, but what's the one on the left? It's an E model, so that eliminates a lot of squadrons, and it has black tails---checking around the Navy site makes me think its VFA-115 from the Reagan. But I can't see ANY yellow on it, and their yellow should be visible. VFA-14?

[buddhafabio]

apparently in the 90s the British were a little upset because of UFAOs unidentified flying American objects.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1804926,00.html

supposedly the story hints to auroras existance. but a triangle shaped plane leads me to think B-2 or f-117

Edited June 26, 2006 by buddhafabio

[Warmaker]

Nice photo links, David.

You usually don't see that many carriers in one area at sea. Well, not unless s**t hits the fan

[Apollo Leader]

The Supersonic Shape-Shifting Bomber!

[Knight26]

Ah the return of the oblique wing concept, I hope they can get the flight controls to adjust properly this time.

[Nied]

Man, PopSci just loves dubbing planes "switchblade" don't they.

[Nied]

Could this be the F-22 problems that Knight26 refered to a couple pages back?

Raptors getting hot under the collar

[Knight26]

One of many Neid, one of many.

Anyway today I really wished that I could bring a camera onto the flightline. Basically I will keep this short I went out to pick up a crew from a returning mission, since I am on ODO duty, and what should be parked out on the ramp but a brand spanking ROKAF F-15K.

[Nied]

One of many Neid, one of many.

Anyway today I really wished that I could bring a camera onto the flightline.  Basically I will keep this short I went out to pick up a crew from a returning mission, since I am on ODO duty, and what should be parked out on the ramp but a brand spanking ROKAF F-15K.

411484[/snapback]

Bah. This one's easy. COTS, just switch to Arctic Silver 5 and it'll lower your CPU temps by at least a few degrees C.

In all seriousness why not just rig up a portable AC to blow cold air on the avionics bay while the aircraft is on the ground?

[Knight26]

It would take more then that to fix the problem Nied, plus openning up the computer bays and shoving a cooling air line in there is a bit more complicated then you might think especially due to their location.

[Nied]

Fair enough. Still this doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem, I joked about COTS, but it really does seem like some of the stuff your average overclocking computer builder uses could come in handy here. Why not incorporate some peltier chips in the new COTS computer modules that are supposed to be installed in '07?

::edit:: Better yet incorporate clock cycle throttling like on new CPUs. The F-22 Raptor, now with "Cool 'n' Quietâ„¢" technology from AMD!

Edited June 27, 2006 by Nied

[Lynx7725]

Could this be the F-22 problems that Knight26 refered to a couple pages back?

Raptors getting hot under the collar

411471[/snapback]

I started writing a fairly ranty post, but decided to throttle back.. so I'll just ask this, just to know: how many aircraft in the last few generations suffered from similar problems?

[Nied]

Could this be the F-22 problems that Knight26 refered to a couple pages back?

Raptors getting hot under the collar

411471[/snapback]

I started writing a fairly ranty post, but decided to throttle back.. so I'll just ask this, just to know: how many aircraft in the last few generations suffered from similar problems?

411569[/snapback]

Define similar. While there isn't much precedent for teething trouble from the computer systems of most aircraft there's plenty of examples of big problems cropping up in aircraft after they're already in production. The F-100 Super Sabre had far too small of a vertical stab installed on the first hundred or so examples. They had to halt production and redesign the whole tail after a string of accidents. The F-14 Tomcat needed to have several reinforcements installed on its back because the area around the wing hinge ended up being too weak. The F-16 originally had vertical stabs that were far too small (although this didn't require that big of a re-design). The F/A-18 had a nasty problem where the vortices off of the LERXs could conceivably rip the tail fins off during high Alpha maneuvers, that grounded the entire fleet before it was fixed. And as much as I think it's a good plane you don't want to get me started on all the problems they had with the Super Hornet. I'm sure there's more examples out there.

[Lynx7725]

I started writing a fairly ranty post, but decided to throttle back.. so I'll just ask this, just to know: how many aircraft in the last few generations suffered from similar problems?

411569[/snapback]

Define similar. While there isn't much precedent for teething trouble from the computer systems of most aircraft there's plenty of examples of big problems cropping up in aircraft after they're already in production. The F-100 Super Sabre had far too small of a vertical stab installed on the first hundred or so examples. They had to halt production and redesign the whole tail after a string of accidents. The F-14 Tomcat needed to have several reinforcements installed on its back because the area around the wing hinge ended up being too weak. The F-16 originally had vertical stabs that were far too small (although this didn't require that big of a re-design). The F/A-18 had a nasty problem where the vortices off of the LERXs could conceivably rip the tail fins off during high Alpha maneuvers, that grounded the entire fleet before it was fixed. And as much as I think it's a good plane you don't want to get me started on all the problems they had with the Super Hornet. I'm sure there's more examples out there.

411599[/snapback]

I'm actually ok with those problems (well, sort of). I mean, those are design issue that impacts no matter where you deploy them. It's bad, but once you fix it you can deploy the aircraft anywhere you need to.

I meant a design issue that specifically preclude or limit an aircraft from deploying to a specific climate. The F-22 issue would, for safety reasons, limit their deployment to hot climates (which means the Middle East, Central America, and South Asia.. all of which can become hotspots). Granted, with proper care the F-22 can still fly in those climates, but a hanger queen reputation is not something that you want from such an expensive aircraft.

[Nied]

I'm actually ok with those problems (well, sort of). I mean, those are design issue that impacts no matter where you deploy them. It's bad, but once you fix it you can deploy the aircraft anywhere you need to.

I meant a design issue that specifically preclude or limit an aircraft from deploying to a specific climate. The F-22 issue would, for safety reasons, limit their deployment to hot climates (which means the Middle East, Central America, and South Asia.. all of which can become hotspots). Granted, with proper care the F-22 can still fly in those climates, but a hanger queen reputation is not something that you want from such an expensive aircraft.

411604[/snapback]

To be fair with the exception of the Middle East most of the locations you listed don't get over 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Hell the F-22 is long ranged enough that you might even be able to fly missions to the middle east from bases cold enough to deploy from (Diego Garcia maybe). While the problems I listed left aircraft completely unusable and worthless until the problems were fixed.

[David Hingtgen]

Nied--don't you mean F-16 h.stabs, not v.stabs? And I don't think it was a problem so much as an improvement. Ironically it seems easier to fix aerodynamic problems than mechanical/electical problems, historically. It's not the planes, its their systems...

Anyways--ironically, the F-16 has actually had one of its ram-air avionics cooling scoop deleted recently----unnecessary.

Edited June 27, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[David Hingtgen]

99% of these turn out to be something else, but this is popping up a lot of places (as in good places, not BeyondTopSecret):

Said to be the RCS model of Japan's ADT-X fighter, with a model to be flown later this year. It's the low-fat version of the F-35.

Edited June 27, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Warmaker]

"Low Fat" and "Less BS" may be what the JSF program really needs.

It's expected to do too many things for too many people (services AND nationalities) and it's trying to tout the "Joint" and "Strike" titles for appeal for our gov't.

From what I understood, the desired harrier capabilities really held back the program.

It reminds me of a comedy called "The Pentagon Wars," which itself was a parody of the M2 Bradley's development.

"Let's make a new tank. It should have missile capabilities. It should also be able to carry troops, too!"

Lt. Colonel James Burton: "You know what's really ironic? General Omar Bradley was a brilliant tactician, and a great leader. No ego, just did the job. And he always looked out for the morale and safety of his men. And then they go and put his name on THIS thing. Talk about a kick in the ass."

[Lynx7725]

To be fair with the exception of the Middle East most of the locations you listed don't get over 120 degrees Fahrenheit.  Hell the F-22 is long ranged enough that you might even be able to fly missions to the middle east from bases cold enough to deploy from (Diego Garcia maybe).  While the problems I listed left aircraft completely unusable and worthless until the problems were fixed.

411619[/snapback]

Which is fair enough. Still, the report just cites shutdown above 120 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 48 degress Celsius), not sure if glitches would start showing up at lower warmish temperatures.

Truth to be told, it's a result of the overhyped and overbloated cost of the F-22. Poured that much money down that pit, and we still get this kind of reports. Uncharitable sorts would probably make a lot of noise about it, but at the moment I'm undecided as whether I am amused or annoyed.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Yes but that japanese fighter actually looks good, unlike the JSF.

I say kill the JSF, give the USAF more raptors, and the Marines with an all super bug fleet! (F/A-18E to replace the F/A-18C's, F/A-18F to replace the F/A-18D's, and EA-18G or F/A-18F w/mission swappable components for EW to replace the EA-6B's. Then maybe the X-35B, also sell it to the UK and India).

[Graham]

99% of these turn out to be something else, but this is popping up a lot of places (as in good places, not BeyondTopSecret):

Said to be the RCS model of Japan's ADT-X fighter, with a model to be flown later this year.  It's the low-fat version of the F-35.

411648[/snapback]

Rear visibilty on that thing looks non-existant.

Graham

[Knight26]

looks kind of like they married a Su-30 and an F-35

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

99% of these turn out to be something else, but this is popping up a lot of places (as in good places, not BeyondTopSecret):

Said to be the RCS model of Japan's ADT-X fighter, with a model to be flown later this year.  It's the low-fat version of the F-35.

411648[/snapback]

Rear visibilty on that thing looks non-existant.

Graham

411700[/snapback]

Very 'VF-1' like don't you think?

[Nied]

Nied--don't you mean F-16 h.stabs, not v.stabs?  And I don't think it was a problem so much as an improvement.  Ironically it seems easier to fix aerodynamic problems than mechanical/electical problems, historically.  It's not the planes, its their systems...

Anyways--ironically, the F-16 has actually had one of its ram-air avionics cooling scoop deleted recently----unnecessary.

411632[/snapback]

I did mean H. stabs. That'll show me for posting on three hours of sleep.

[Nied]

Which is fair enough. Still, the report just cites shutdown above 120 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 48 degress Celsius), not sure if glitches would start showing up at lower warmish temperatures.

Truth to be told, it's a result of the overhyped and overbloated cost of the F-22. Poured that much money down that pit, and we still get this kind of reports. Uncharitable sorts would probably make a lot of noise about it, but at the moment I'm undecided as whether I am amused or annoyed.

411677[/snapback]

Compared to some of the design flaws I listed (which literally killed pilots) this is increadibly small. Consider it a benefit of pouring all that money into the thing, all we've gotten is a design flaw that makes it tough (but not impossible) to deploy to specific locations at specific times of day (it's not 120 degrees at night).

[Mislovrit]

99% of these turn out to be something else, but this is popping up a lot of places (as in good places, not BeyondTopSecret):

Said to be the RCS model of Japan's ADT-X fighter, with a model to be flown later this year.  It's the low-fat version of the F-35.

411648[/snapback]

Is it just me or does it look like it is a two engine fighter?

[Knight26]

It does look to be a twin engine, possibly based off the F-404 or F-414.

[VF-19]

Which is fair enough. Still, the report just cites shutdown above 120 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 48 degress Celsius), not sure if glitches would start showing up at lower warmish temperatures.

Truth to be told, it's a result of the overhyped and overbloated cost of the F-22. Poured that much money down that pit, and we still get this kind of reports. Uncharitable sorts would probably make a lot of noise about it, but at the moment I'm undecided as whether I am amused or annoyed.

411677[/snapback]

Compared to some of the design flaws I listed (which literally killed pilots) this is increadibly small. Consider it a benefit of pouring all that money into the thing, all we've gotten is a design flaw that makes it tough (but not impossible) to deploy to specific locations at specific times of day (it's not 120 degrees at night).

411804[/snapback]

Didn't the F-16 at one point had a nasty flaw involving the firing of the onboard cannon? I'm probably recalling incorrectly, but everytime the pilot fired the gun, the computer began to do weird yawing motions...

[David Hingtgen]

Most every plane from the F-15 on has the computer automatically move the rudder(s) to counteract the yaw induced by firing the gun. If there were a problem with the system, I'd think it'd be easy to correct.

Anyways---most people are thinking the ADT-X is a twin-engine plane.

Edited June 29, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Warmaker]

I remember seeing a pic of that CH-53 years ago.

It was one of our squadrons at Afghanistan, during the early phases of OEF.

[kalvasflam]

99% of these turn out to be something else, but this is popping up a lot of places (as in good places, not BeyondTopSecret):

Said to be the RCS model of Japan's ADT-X fighter, with a model to be flown later this year.  It's the low-fat version of the F-35.

411648[/snapback]

Rear visibilty on that thing looks non-existant.

Graham

411700[/snapback]

Very 'VF-1' like don't you think?

411791[/snapback]

Reminds me of the older Migs, and I think the first flight SU-27s.

I think.... but isn't this more a no-trans-fat version of the F-35? heh heh

[Mislovrit]

It reminds me of a comedy called "The Pentagon Wars," which itself was a parody of the M2 Bradley's development.

Found this thread General Depuy; How Does He Rate?, amongst 20th century GOs in peacetime which have more information on the Brad fiasco.

[Knight26]

All aircraft have some teething problems, some are small, some are major. When it comes to the F-22 though, well we are starting to the see the final results of stealth design. In particular maintenance on the F-22 will be a nightmare due to there being far too few maintenance access panels, and the far too crowded landing gear and weapons bays. Wonder what I mean, well look in your standard landing gear well, it is relatively clean and uncluttered, look in an F-22 landing gear well and it is crammed full of valves, fill ports, sumps, gauges, etc... That was all done to minimize the number of opennings on the exterior of the aircraft to increase stealth, but then look how low it sits to the ground, oh yeah the maintainers just love it.

[Nied]

All aircraft have some teething problems, some are small, some are major.  When it comes to the F-22 though, well we are starting to the see the final results of stealth design.  In particular maintenance on the F-22 will be a nightmare due to there being far too few maintenance access panels, and the far too crowded landing gear and weapons bays.  Wonder what I mean, well look in your standard landing gear well, it is relatively clean and uncluttered, look in an F-22 landing gear well and it is crammed full of valves, fill ports, sumps, gauges, etc...  That was all done to minimize the number of opennings on the exterior of the aircraft to increase stealth, but then look how low it sits to the ground, oh yeah the maintainers just love it.

412471[/snapback]

I thought it sits so low to the ground to increase maintainability. Everything I've read said that was done so that all access panels would be at chest height.

[Warmaker]

Imagine how fun maintenance will be once the aircraft is 15-20 or more years old