Aircraft Vs Thread 3

[David Hingtgen]

That was quick, have to start a new one already. No name/subtitle for the thread on purpose--I'm not that fond of them.

Anyways---I visited my brother last weekend and went to the airshow in Duluth. Best show I've seen. Never knew a B-2 could bank hard enough to make vapor.

[Skull Leader]

Which one did you get to see? I was at the Whiteman AFB show and we saw 3. 2 did flybys and then landed... the other was on static display.:

-The "Spirit of America" (the prototype-turned-production type. Hard to believe this plane was flying in 1982...)

-The "Spirit of Kansas"

-The "Spirit of South Carolina" (this was the static display jet)

(I took pictures of it, but I don't have any hosted online, and I'm too lazy to dig the Whiteman photo CD I compiled out...)

Edited July 16, 2006 by Skull Leader

[David Hingtgen]

"Spirit of California" according to the pics at Fencecheck.

[Apollo Leader]

-The "Spirit of America" (the prototype-turned-production type. Hard to believe this plane was flying in 1982...)

416624[/snapback]

July 1989. This was between my freshman and sophmore years of high school. I even taped the flight as it was broadcast on CNN. Still have the tape to this day. The 82 as part of its serial number indicates which fiscal year the aircraft was purchased.

The most B-2's I ever saw in one shot was on Labor Day weekend 1995. When they had the naming ceremony here at Offutt for the Spirit of Nebraska, I believe it was the Spirit of Texas that did a fly by.

It's been 17 years since the B-2 first flew. It has been in combat three times (so much for the B-2 being unneeded in the post Cold War era...) and not a single one has crashed or been shot down. A definite tribute to the workers at Northrop Grumman and the men and women of the 509th.

Edited July 16, 2006 by Apollo Leader

[David Hingtgen]

Only really good picture was of the Super Hornet after their demo---Rocky and Sicko waving to the crowd:

[kalvasflam]

Scary, I remember that they used to name battle ships after states, now we're naming bombers, just goes to show how little a dollar can buy these days.

[BigDMacross2]

So I was surfing the net at work and came across a very interseting site

http://www.flugwerk.de

Sorry if it has been posted before.

As for the B-2 I live near TMS and saw the flyover form my back porch for last falls Nascar race, impresive aircraft to see in the air; and damn quite.

[Warmaker]

Scary, I remember that they used to name battle ships after states, now we're naming bombers, just goes to show how little a dollar can buy these days.

416740[/snapback]

Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN's) are still named after states, i.e. Ohio Class. They were even using state names even when the Battleships were still operating.

Attack Submarines are usually after cities, though what's funny is that Pres.Carter has a sub named after him. But at least he was a previous Submariner.

Carriers are usually named after Presidents (Reagan, Roosevelt, etc) or major Navy figures (Nimitz).

As for the SSBN's, they possess the firepower to annihalate an entire country by themselves.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Warmaker

[David Hingtgen]

Except nowadays Congress has figured out how easy it is to make bills to name ships whatever they want, so we get a lot of "who the heck was/where is THAT?" names lately, and "less than stellar" presidents. Like the next line of super-carriers will be Gerald Ford class. Yeah, THAT's the image you want to project from the flagship of the US Navy.

Quick and easy votes: get a ship named for a city in your state, or after someone from there.

[the white drew carey]

The new attack subs are names after states, as well, with the Virginia, Texas and Hawaii already named. One of my buddies had the distinct pleasure of doing electrical engineering for the Navy, and got to ride on the Virginia. Bastard.

Jimmy Carter is the third Seawolf class, which originally veered away from the city name-theme with the Seawolf (a proud, recurring name within the Navy), then swinging into SSBN territory with the Connecticut before doing another 180 and naming the third and final boat in the class after former submariner and home-builder for the homeless- Jimmy Carter.

[mikeszekely]

Forgive me if this was mentioned before, but did you guys hear? As of 7-7, the F-35 is apparently the Lightning II.

[ALLAN]

So I was surfing the net at work and came across a very interseting site

http://www.flugwerk.de

Sorry if it has been posted before.

As for the B-2 I live near TMS and saw the flyover form my back porch for last falls Nascar race, impresive aircraft to see in the air; and damn quite.

416743[/snapback]

Whats up neighbor. I work at Alliance.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

THought of this today

What does the FB-111A have over the F-111F? Why use the FB-111A?

F-111F, A-6E, SU-24, Tornado IDS GR.4, Sepecat Jaguar, which is the better bomber?

And for the sake of old times, Does the Super Hornet outdo the legacy hornet to the point of even worth being bought?

The growth potential sounds very promising but other than that, it seems like the superhornet program could not outshine the legacy hornet's during its inception.(Then again to be fair, the legacy was the first dedicated multiroler for the navy made to do multirole, whereas the superhornet is the successor to it).

In other words, seems like the legacy hornet broke more ground, where as the super hornet seems like it is just improving on it.

Are there any plans to upgrade it with TVC or higher thrust engines?

[Nied]

And for the sake of old times, Does the Super Hornet outdo the legacy hornet to the point of even worth being bought?

The growth potential sounds very promising but other than that, it seems like the superhornet program could not outshine the legacy hornet's during its inception.(Then again to be fair, the legacy was the first dedicated multiroler for the navy made to do multirole, whereas the superhornet is the successor to it).

In other words, seems like the legacy hornet broke more ground, where as the super hornet seems like it is just improving on it.

Are there any plans to upgrade it with TVC or higher thrust engines?

416986[/snapback]

Not this again! The Rhino is stealthier, carries more, has way better sensors, is vastly more maneuverable and has way more legs. Not only is it worth it as a Baby hornet replacement it's a damn good Tomcat replacement to boot.

GE is working on a higher thrust version of the F414, but AFAIK no TVC version. I don't know if TVC is really needed anyway, the Rhino is plenty maneuverable as it is.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

And for the sake of old times, Does the Super Hornet outdo the legacy hornet to the point of even worth being bought?

The growth potential sounds very promising but other than that, it seems like the superhornet program could not outshine the legacy hornet's during its inception.(Then again to be fair, the legacy was the first dedicated multiroler for the navy made to do multirole, whereas the superhornet is the successor to it).

In other words, seems like the legacy hornet broke more ground, where as the super hornet seems like it is just improving on it.

Are there any plans to upgrade it with TVC or higher thrust engines?

416986[/snapback]

Not this again! The Rhino is stealthier, carries more, has way better sensors, is vastly more maneuverable and has way more legs. Not only is it worth it as a Baby hornet replacement it's a damn good Tomcat replacement to boot.

GE is working on a higher thrust version of the F414, but AFAIK no TVC version. I don't know if TVC is really needed anyway, the Rhino is plenty maneuverable as it is.

417003[/snapback]

Oh don't get the wrong idea man, I wasn't trying to resurrect the years old tomcat vs hornet thread.

I knew it had more range and better avionics. Is it really vastly more manueverable though? The legacy was pretty manueverable as well. I imagine the nose pointing ability on the super bug is superior. It is pretty impressive.

I guess my underlying question was whether or not the l;egacy hornet needed to be replaced by the super hornet>? In other words, has it bridged the gap that far? Or just by a little bit?

[ghostryder]

It seems that the SH does eveything the legacy hornet is supposed to do just a little better. Worth the R&D cost? Probably not, but it was all politics and we don't need to cross that bridge again. I always wondered if upgrading the engines, changing the inlets, adding some RAM, and accomodating some dorsal CFTs would have been enough to increase the service life of the legacy hornet at a lower cost.

[Nied]

Oh don't get the wrong idea man, I wasn't trying to resurrect the years old tomcat vs hornet thread. 

I knew it had more range and better avionics.  Is it really vastly more manueverable though? The legacy was pretty manueverable as well.  I imagine the nose pointing ability on the super bug is superior.  It is pretty impressive.

I guess my underlying question was whether or not the l;egacy hornet needed to be replaced by the super hornet>? In other words, has it bridged the gap that far? Or just by a little bit?

417008[/snapback]

I would think that on range and sensors alone the Rhino is worth the money, the rest is gravy.

[kalvasflam]

THought of this today

What does the FB-111A have over the F-111F?  Why use the FB-111A?

F-111F, A-6E, SU-24, Tornado IDS GR.4, Sepecat Jaguar, which is the better bomber?

416986[/snapback]

Interesting question. Ok, I'm gonna look at this backwards, by eliminating non-contenders first.

Jaguar was replaced by the Tornado, so it's out.

The SU-24 has short combat legs under full load, but carries a nice loadout. So, short legs eliminate it.

Tornado is slightly newer, better legs, and heavier loadout, but still not that great. So, it's out.

The final contenders are tough.

The F-111F, can carry heavier load, but not quite the range of the A-6E. A-6E can't carry the load, but the load it does carry is more versatile. Not as fast as the F-111F though.

Hmmm, I guess if I had to pick for pure land attack missions, F-111F, but for all purpose attack, where maritime attack comes in, well, the F-111F just don't carry harpoons, and that's a crying shame.

[kalvasflam]

The new attack subs are names after states, as well, with the Virginia, Texas and Hawaii already named. One of my buddies had the distinct pleasure of doing electrical engineering for the Navy, and got to ride on the Virginia. Bastard.

Jimmy Carter is the third Seawolf class, which originally veered away from the city name-theme with the Seawolf (a proud, recurring name within the Navy), then swinging into SSBN territory with the Connecticut before doing another 180 and naming the third and final boat in the class after former submariner and home-builder for the homeless- Jimmy Carter.

416821[/snapback]

I can't stand these people naming warships after politicians. Stennis, Vinson, etc, geez, I can understand if they name it for a real war hero, and might make exception for one or two politicians, Ike, GW, and Abe comes to mind. But that's about it. Jimmy Carter? I don't care if he was in the navy, it's a disgrace to name a fighting ship after someone like him, same for Reagan, and Bush.

I want warships named after famous battles... or respectable people, i.e. Nimitz was deserving, and they really should've named a carrier after Spruance, and possibly even Halsey, definitely Mitscher. But sadly, that was not to be....

[buddhafabio]

you are starting to get political. dont go there.

[the white drew carey]

I can't stand these people naming warships after politicians.  Stennis, Vinson, etc, geez, I can understand if they name it for a real war hero, and might make exception for one or two politicians, Ike, GW, and Abe comes to mind.  But that's about it.  Jimmy Carter?  I don't care if he was in the navy, it's a disgrace to name a fighting ship after someone like him, same for Reagan, and Bush. 

I want warships named after famous battles... or respectable people, i.e. Nimitz was deserving, and they really should've named a carrier after Spruance, and possibly even Halsey, definitely Mitscher.  But sadly, that was not to be....

Ummm... George H.W. Bush served as a Navy pilot in WWII, flying a TBF Avenger off of a light carrier (the name eludes me at the moment). He was shot down during a mission and was picked up the by the submarine USS Finback.

I don't mind if they name a ship after him, as he served a our country in the military and as president (whether you liked him or not). I just don't think anyone should have a ship named after them until after they're dead.

[the white drew carey]

Addendum- He was flying off of CVL-30 USS San Jacinto.

[Apollo Leader]

Yesterday here in Omaha when I was out walking on the bike trail during my lunch break, right when I was coming up upon the I-80 overpass, I saw a B-17 flying low and heading to the east. Not the first time I've seen a WWII bird while out on one of my walks at noon. Last year I saw a P-51 flying low above L St. heading east. I do know the Commemorative Air Force has a strip and have a small museum they have across the river in Council Bluffs. Don't know if that strip could handle something as big as a B-17, though.

Since Offutt's to the south and so is the main approach pattern, there's been a lot of times where I've seen a variety of fighters, bombers, and other aircraft heading into Offutt during my walks. Ditto if I'm out there on the trail for one of my several hour bike rides especially since the main trail here in the area wraps completely around the base.

[Knight26]

In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110. But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much. Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents.

As for the naming of ships. Carriers are named after Presidents, Naval Heroes, and Legacy Ships. Reagan was president, and like his politics or not he did a great deal for the military and most military leadership still loves him. Bush senior, as stated was a Naval pilot in WW2 and in some circles is considered a naval hero because of his actions after he got shot down. Vinson, while a politician, is considered a naval hero because of the work he did as head of the house armed services commitee, and in the process created the structure of the armed forces as we now know it. Stennis, while also a politician is considered the father of the modern navy, and again he was the head of the house armed services commitee. So should carriers be named after such politicians, maybe, maybe not, but they did a lot to help the navy, but the Navy picked the names and they think that they are appropriate. As for naming a sub after Carter, love him or hate him, he is the best ex-president we've ever had, and he was a submariner, so naming a sub after him is appropriate, and IIRC he was asked and agreed that a sub was more appropriate for his name.

Will we ever see a USS Ford, a USS Nixon, or USS Clinton, or USS Bush Jr, probably not though Nixon does probably deserve to have a ship named after him.

As for naming ships after famous battles, what do you think most of the destroyers are named after? There is a comprehensive rule book on how ships are named and the Navy, with its long traditions, sticks to that strongly.

Also, there are whispers in the fleet, ok more then whispers, that the CVN(X)-78 will be the *insert drumroll* The ENTERPRISE. Yes the Big E will get yet another carrier. The reason being is that the current Big-E is scheduled for Decomm in 2013-2014 and the new BiG-E is scheduled for commissioning in 2014, and in the whole history of the navy there has never not been an Enterprise.

Edited July 18, 2006 by Knight26

[ghostryder]

In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110.  But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much.  Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents.

417131[/snapback]

I thought the problem was airframe size - to accomodate something along the lines of a GE F110, the SH airframe would have had to been seriously changed. Shoot, even F-16s that had F110s needed a larger inlet/tail to handle the new engine and airflow requirements. The SH is in the same weight class as the F-15C, and the F414s are close in thrust class as the F-15' old PWF100s. The problem is the inherent drag from the SH airframe, which was not designed for high Mach speed or maneuverability.

[F-ZeroOne]

THought of this today

What does the FB-111A have over the F-111F?  Why use the FB-111A?

F-111F, A-6E, SU-24, Tornado IDS GR.4, Sepecat Jaguar, which is the better bomber?

416986[/snapback]

Interesting question. Ok, I'm gonna look at this backwards, by eliminating non-contenders first.

Jaguar was replaced by the Tornado, so it's out.

The SU-24 has short combat legs under full load, but carries a nice loadout. So, short legs eliminate it.

Tornado is slightly newer, better legs, and heavier loadout, but still not that great. So, it's out.

417058[/snapback]

Right, but I bet you one thing - however low you think you are, the Tornado will be under you somewhere.

[RFT]

Jaguar wasn't really replaced by Tornado, thouh they do have similar roles.

Jaguars are only now going out of service being replaced by Typhoons.

of the list, i'd have to go with the F-111- despite my love for the Tonka. however, there's an omission from the list...

however low you think you are, the Tornado will be under you somewhere

and it'll be keeping the sun off a Buccanneer...

Edited July 18, 2006 by RFT

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110.  But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much.  Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents.

As for the naming of ships.  Carriers are named after Presidents, Naval Heroes, and Legacy Ships.  Reagan was president, and like his politics or not he did a great deal for the military and most military leadership still loves him.  Bush senior, as stated was a Naval pilot in WW2 and in some circles is considered a naval hero because of his actions after he got shot down. Vinson, while a politician, is considered a naval hero because of the work he did as head of the house armed services commitee, and in the process created the structure of the armed forces as we now know it.  Stennis, while also a politician is considered the father of the modern navy, and again he was the head of the house armed services commitee.  So should carriers be named after such politicians, maybe, maybe not, but they did a lot to help the navy, but the Navy picked the names and they think that they are appropriate.  As for naming a sub after Carter, love him or hate him, he is the best ex-president we've ever had, and he was a submariner, so naming a sub after him is appropriate, and IIRC he was asked and agreed that a sub was more appropriate for his name.

Will we ever see a USS Ford, a USS Nixon, or USS Clinton, or USS Bush Jr, probably not though Nixon does probably deserve to have a ship named after him.

As for naming ships after famous battles, what do you think most of the destroyers are named after?  There is a comprehensive rule book on how ships are named and the Navy, with its long traditions, sticks to that strongly.

Also, there are whispers in the fleet, ok more then whispers, that the CVN(X)-78 will be the *insert drumroll* The ENTERPRISE.  Yes the Big E will get yet another carrier.  The reason being is that the current Big-E is scheduled for Decomm in 2013-2014 and the new BiG-E is scheduled for commissioning in 2014, and in the whole history of the navy there has never not been an Enterprise.

417131[/snapback]

Isn't the F414 a bigger engine than the F110 though>? I would think it would need a major fueselage redesign to accomodate the engines. Also would redesigning the wings be beneficial as well?(To reduce drag+combined with F110=presumably faster SH).

BTW is that meteor missle the UK is developing set to outdistance the phoenix? Just wondering as its rarely mentioned here. All I know is that the Typhoon is supposed to have it.

[Knight26]

No the F-414 is the same physical size as the F-404 it just has 30% more thrust to account for the 30% greater mass of the Super Bug. It will be quite a long time before anything the F-404/414 engine size class will be able to generate as much thrust as an F-414.

[F-ZeroOne]

J

however low you think you are, the Tornado will be under you somewhere

and it'll be keeping the sun off a Buccanneer...

417141[/snapback]

True; unfortunately "Banana Bombers" are no longer with us (except for that maniac in South Africa)...

I've just finished a book called Vulcan 607, which is about the "Black Buck" bombing missions over the Falklands. Although about 75% of the book is about air-to-air refuelling and the many hundreds of ways in which this can go wrong, its a pretty good read and includes more RAF low-level legends, such as the aircrew who flew up into power-lines (later measured as being 45 feet above ground!). Although specific aircraft aren't mentioned in that story, its likely a Buccaneer - or even more impressive, a Vulcan - was the culprit!

Shin, as to the Meteor - estimates vary. I've seen some at 150km, but some sources quote around 100km. It would appear, though - if the "blurb" is right - that Phoeinx-class range is its - ahem - metier...

Edited July 18, 2006 by F-ZeroOne

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

No the F-414 is the same physical size as the F-404 it just has 30% more thrust to account for the 30% greater mass of the Super Bug.  It will be quite a long time before anything the F-404/414 engine size class will be able to generate as much thrust as an F-414.

417148[/snapback]

Oh I meant F110 being bigger than the F414/400 in my previous post.

[Knight26]

Yes the F-110 is large diameter is about 1 foot larger and I believe it is about two feet longer as well IIRC.

[Nied]

In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110.  But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much.  Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents.

As for the naming of ships.  Carriers are named after Presidents, Naval Heroes, and Legacy Ships.  Reagan was president, and like his politics or not he did a great deal for the military and most military leadership still loves him.  Bush senior, as stated was a Naval pilot in WW2 and in some circles is considered a naval hero because of his actions after he got shot down. Vinson, while a politician, is considered a naval hero because of the work he did as head of the house armed services commitee, and in the process created the structure of the armed forces as we now know it.  Stennis, while also a politician is considered the father of the modern navy, and again he was the head of the house armed services commitee.  So should carriers be named after such politicians, maybe, maybe not, but they did a lot to help the navy, but the Navy picked the names and they think that they are appropriate.  As for naming a sub after Carter, love him or hate him, he is the best ex-president we've ever had, and he was a submariner, so naming a sub after him is appropriate, and IIRC he was asked and agreed that a sub was more appropriate for his name.

Will we ever see a USS Ford, a USS Nixon, or USS Clinton, or USS Bush Jr, probably not though Nixon does probably deserve to have a ship named after him.

As for naming ships after famous battles, what do you think most of the destroyers are named after?  There is a comprehensive rule book on how ships are named and the Navy, with its long traditions, sticks to that strongly.

Also, there are whispers in the fleet, ok more then whispers, that the CVN(X)-78 will be the *insert drumroll* The ENTERPRISE.  Yes the Big E will get yet another carrier.  The reason being is that the current Big-E is scheduled for Decomm in 2013-2014 and the new BiG-E is scheduled for commissioning in 2014, and in the whole history of the navy there has never not been an Enterprise.

417131[/snapback]

I think the problem with the current naming system is that it has become way to politicised. Recent presidents are getting stuff named after them more as a F*ck you to the other political party than as a way to honor revered statesmen. I find that more than a little repulsive, the military is there to defend all of the country not just whoever's party happens to be in power at the moment and I think the naming of ships should reflect that (a the idea of a USS Nixon is horrifying to me, and as much as I liked him as president, the idea of a USS Clinton doesn't sit much better with me). I would like to see a return to the old tradition of naming carriers after famous battles, or if we must name them after presidents, only ones that have been dead for at least 50 years. (USS Franklin Delano Roosevelt anyone?)

[Nied]

Yes the F-110 is large diameter is about 1 foot larger and I believe it is about two feet longer as well IIRC.

417187[/snapback]

Yeah I always thought it would be a better idea to have designed the F/A-18F around a larger engine as well. They were already re-designing the fuselage and a small upscale of the rear fuselage doesn't strike me as too big of a challenge. That would have given it enough room to plug in some of the better next-gen engines down the road as well (as awesome as a Super Bug with F110s sounds, imagine it with F119s or F136s ) Knight this is the first I've heard of the Navy being displeased with the F110, what kind of problems did they have with it specifically (or rather have since there're still a few F-14Ds banging around for another month or two)?

[Knight26]

Nied, I think the biggest problem that the Navy had with the F-110 was that is was developed for the Air Force, yes there is still that interservice rivalry. Whereas the F-404/414 on the other hand has always been a navy project.

As for the naming system, I agree that the preson a ship is named after should already be dead, it is after all an honorarium. But personnally I have no problem with the Reagan or the Kennedy being named so soon after the president was dead. As for naming them after old naval battles, or legacy carriers a lot of those names are now going to the LHAs and LHDs (the helo/harrier carriers) though some are also named after islands, go figure.