Aircraft Vs Thread 3

[Warmaker]

I was working launches for the MAGTF demos at 2006's Miramar Air Show. So if he was the Narrator last year for the Blue Angels, then I did hear him.

It's unfortunate. But fatal aviation mishaps occur all the time, especially if a military flies alot (training, combat ops, etc). Even experienced demonstration teams have the occasional event like this.

Condolences to the man's family.

-----

As for the best replacement of the F/A-18C, the jury is still out on that. The Superbug needs to prove itself. The JSF? All I've heard is the numerous problems of development.

As for the F-16C replacement, I have very little knowledge on the Falcon's blocks, even less with the newer block being mentioned. The JSF problem still applies with the Naval variant.

The JSF to me is suffering from too many requirements from too many services from too many countries. The US Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force all have standards that they need. Fine. Then there's the needs of the RAF and other interested parties who have their own requirements. I guess we'll see how this one goes.

[VF-19]

So it's back to the problem of the F-111 then...

[Warmaker]

Maybe, but hopefully it doesn't come to that. Besides, wasn't the F-111 first accepted by the Air Force then was almost put forcibly through the Navy's throat?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Maybe, but hopefully it doesn't come to that. Besides, wasn't the F-111 first accepted by the Air Force then was almost put forcibly through the Navy's throat?

Yes due to the commonality that Mcnamara believed in and the genius ideas of his "whizkids". Even on that plane, they say the F-111 was a politically motivated decision, that the rival design from Boeing was actually the better plane.

[Mislovrit]

Any information on the Boeing design?

[VF-19]

Maybe, but hopefully it doesn't come to that. Besides, wasn't the F-111 first accepted by the Air Force then was almost put forcibly through the Navy's throat?

If that's true, then shouldn't something be designed to be used by a naval airforce first, and then adapted for use on land airforces? I mean, the F-4 and F-18 both do pretty well as convential airforce fodder, and they're (well with exception to the F-18... It did come from the YF-17) both primarily made for use on a carrier.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

If that's true, then shouldn't something be designed to be used by a naval airforce first, and then adapted for use on land airforces? I mean, the F-4 and F-18 both do pretty well as convential airforce fodder, and they're (well with exception to the F-18... It did come from the YF-17) both primarily made for use on a carrier.

Well, the air force and navy have different purposes and they both have a long running rivalry. The Air Force did not exactly want to swallow their pride and take in both the F-4 and A-7.

Also all naval aircraft need beefy landing gear/strengthened undercarriage and on land based planes, its just more weight that isn't needed and could hinder performance.

It also boils down to the "all the eggs in one basket" argument and the carrier vs long range bomber argument.

If both services ended up using the all the same planes on all the same missions, people would start questioning why the navy would even need airplanes. Well thats the way I see it.

But I do see your point in that naval planes can be adapted to air forces that are land based, good point with the f-18 and f-4.

[Warmaker]

Other differences in Naval and completely Land Based aircraft.

Naval aircraft must have strong airframes as well as tough landing gear.

I've spent all my time with Naval aircraft but have had the pleasure of seeing up close USAF F-16's and F-15's. I didn't get to see the "guts and innards" of the jets but the landing gear on these two teen fighters are like twigs compared to Naval aircraft landing gear.

Empty Weights

F-4E 30k lbs

A-7D 20k lbs

F-15C 28k lbs

F-16C 18k lbs

F/A-18C 24k lbs

F/A-18F 30k lbs

F-14D 42k lbs

EA-6B 34k lbs

Naval aircraft on average are heavier than completely land based ones. I'm willing to bet it's because the airframes are built tougher. The combination of tougher airframes and tougher landing gear are some of the reasons Naval aircraft can operate from a carrier but adds alot of weight. They get beat alot, especially with hard landings on the flight deck.*

The F-16 and F-15 are fine jets and have served the USAF well. But they're not capable of Naval operations. They'll snap like a twig on the cats and break in half on a trap

Also, Naval aircraft tend to want good low speed handling for landing on a carrier. There was a whole big set of drama about high and low speeds for approaches on a carrier back in the 60's, which eventually led into the F-111 navalized version and finally into the Tomcat.

* Even among Naval aircraft, some jets have a reputation for taking really bad feeling landings on the flight deck (making the ship shake). When I watch our Hornets take a bad landing, I glance and smile at our Airframers who now have to do a series of inspections and whatnot for popping maintenance codes relating to hard landings (and putting that jet up on jacks in the hangar. It's a big pain in the a**). I watched a Tomcat suffer the same, laugh at a Tomcat final checker near me. The ba**ard just smiles, and points... the Tomcat's coming straight to our forward catapults after landing and raising its tailhook.

"Son of a b***!"

[David Hingtgen]

Thus the main reason I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 never appears on a carrier. The #1 reason it has weight issues now is due to raw airframe strength. The prototype was built light enough (and thus, only barely strong enough) to survive a few dozen demo flights, and hover around with no payload and minimal fuel. To make the fuselage and wings strong enough to survive thousands of hours, carrying thousands of pounds---every part has to be stronger and thicker. Thus, heavier. And that's just for the USAF version. To make it strong enough to survive carrier landings---doubt it. And the heavier it is--the faster it has to fly--also bad for carrier ops.

[Graham]

All good news about the JSF. Never liked the thing anyway. Hopefully the Royal Navy will end up with navalised Typhoons. Be funny if the USN also ended up with them as well.......LOL!

Graham

[Warmaker]

If it doesn't come out as nice a deal for the USN, I'm sure the Navy can find a way out of it if someone tries to force it down their throats. From what I recall since the 60's, it wouldn't be the first time it was tried. The navalized F-111 is the biggest example and the Navy fought that tooth and nail to eventually get the Tomcat.

Now that I think of it, I can't think of a Naval fighter that was forced successfully onto the USN as a multi-service jet since the 60's. The F-4 was accepted by the Navy first, I think. Same with the A-7's. And both platforms did appear in other services.

I think the US Navy has that 1 trump card to say "No deal": Not suitable / safe for carrier operations

I would be curious to see what the Navy would do if the JSF was cr** for carrier ops and had to say no. What platform would the go for and all that. Something new? Get more Super Hornets?

The other interesting thing is with the USMC variants which are supposed to be VTOL capable. The Marines are supposed to be still with carrier air wings, but if their version isn't good to go for carrier ops but still suitable for land-based... well, it may be interesting.

[David Hingtgen]

Both the F-4 and A-7 were designed purely for the Navy. But they were so superior to their land-based counterparts the USAF would have been stupid not to get them.

Though interestingly, Naval F-4's never got guns despite how many gunned F-4's the USAF got as fast as possible, and it was the USAF's modifications (the D model) to the A-7 that really unlocked its potential, which lead directly to the Navy's A-7E.

I would say great planes come about when they're designed for the Navy, but modified for the Air Force. The reverse usually leads to nightmares like the F-111B (and potentially JSF).

PS--if the UK was smart, they wouldn't be "debating" about putting catapults in their new carrier instead of a ski ramp--they'd have the parts on order already. Whether they have to go with a USN-style JSF or navalised Typhoon (or even the Rafale), having a VTOL JSF shouldn't be counted on, especially when the loss of it would basically cripple the carrier for its operational life. Most people including me think its just stupid to make a design that large NOT have catapults. Ski-ramps are for mini wannabe carriers with a dozen helicopters and small VTOLs. The new UK design will be roughly equivalent to the US Midway class, which operated 60-plane mixed F-4/F-18 airwings at the end. It's really pointless to build a large modern carrier, yet equip/operate it the same as the Ark Royal. They have the hull design to build a world-class carrier equal to anything the US has, but they don't seem to want to give it the "real" air wing it deserves...

Pic for comparison, showing how big the new carrier will be (France has the right idea--they're planning on building one with the same hull design, but equipping it with catapults and a bunch of Rafales, as well as an E-2D for AWACS)

PPS---an E-2 you say? Aren't they old? Yes they are--but since the JIGS WEREN'T DESTROYED, we can build more, and equip them with the latest avionics and engines---and it's a lot cheaper than designing something all-new to replace it in the exact same role. All E-2D's AFAIK will be new-build planes.

[Apollo Leader]

Any information on the Boeing design?

I haven't been able to find any pictures online, but the Boeing design was a swing winger similar in form to General Dynamics design, but one thing that really stood out was its single air intake which was mounted over the fuselage. I've seen pictures of (what I believe was) Republic's TFX design which also a swing wing design though I think the cockpit may have been tandem instead of side-by-side.

Found this article in Time's archive about the TFX going back to 1962. Funny how so many of these predictions were so far off... "TFX to be the last manned fighter", "Boeing's Dyna Soar being the way of the future of military combat aircrafct". Also, how many people reading this article would have predicted that the those H model B-52's rolling off of Boeing's production lines would still be in service over 45 years later?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,829583,00.html

Edited April 25, 2007 by Apollo Leader

[Apollo Leader]

After some more digging I found a message board which has a bunch of pictures of the various company TFX proposals.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...amp;topic=526.0

I forgot that the Boeing design was dual air intakes, not one. Most of these pictures and designs I have seen before, but I think that this is the first time I've seen pictures of Boeing's design in mockup form... there was even a mockup section of a proposed tandem seated version of Boeing's design.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Apollo Leader

[RFT]

if the UK was smart, they wouldn't be "debating" about putting catapults in their new carrier instead of a ski ramp--they'd have the parts on order already. Whether they have to go with a USN-style JSF or navalised Typhoon (or even the Rafale), having a VTOL JSF shouldn't be counted on, especially when the loss of it would basically cripple the carrier for its operational life. Most people including me think its just stupid to make a design that large NOT have catapults. Ski-ramps are for mini wannabe carriers with a dozen helicopters and small VTOLs. The new UK design will be roughly equivalent to the US Midway class, which operated 60-plane mixed F-4/F-18 airwings at the end. It's really pointless to build a large modern carrier, yet equip/operate it the same as the Ark Royal. They have the hull design to build a world-class carrier equal to anything the US has, but they don't seem to want to give it the "real" air wing it deserves...

Quoted for truth, and in fact I remeber posting something to that effect bloody ages ago.

My root feeling is that there really isn't any need for STOVL in the current climate - The RAF don't really need it now we're out of the cold war, the Royal Navy wouldn't need it if the carriers had cats and wires, which basically leaves the USMC as the remaining F-35B customer...

I don't think, though, that F-35B's in much danger simply because the whole project was started off by the RN and USMC as a Harrier replacement programme and that thinking seems to be pretty deep - it;s nearly alwys reported in the UK media as such. and when you describe somethgn as a harrier replacement, you assume it;s got to be STOVL...

Much as I love harriers, I think they're an evolutionary dead-end, really.

What the "United Kingdom Air Force" (to coin a phrase, and it may come about., what with "joint force harrier") really needs in the next 15 years is a good multi-role carrier aircraft (navalised typhoon, imported rafales or superbugs, I'm not that fussy. Hell, Su-33 coule be considered) and a proper "bomb truck" replacement for the Tornado GR, which is already old, and the eurofighter as-is isn't really what's needed. There was the Future Offensive Air System project but I think that was cancelled without leading to anything. anything that we heard about, anyway.

After some more digging I found a message board which has a bunch of pictures of the various company TFX proposals

Good grief, I wouldn't have wanted to try a carrier landing in the republic version

Edited April 25, 2007 by RFT

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I know the Boeing proposal was supposedly better but damn that thing looks rather ugly.

[kalvasflam]

What the "United Kingdom Air Force" (to coin a phrase, and it may come about., what with "joint force harrier") really needs in the next 15 years is a good multi-role carrier aircraft (navalised typhoon, imported rafales or superbugs, I'm not that fussy. Hell, Su-33 coule be considered) and a proper "bomb truck" replacement for the Tornado GR, which is already old, and the eurofighter as-is isn't really what's needed. There was the Future Offensive Air System project but I think that was cancelled without leading to anything. anything that we heard about, anyway.

As for the as UKAF is concerned, have all the Vulcans been withdrawn from service? In terms of a bomb truck, and in view of the current climate, it's not a bad idea to have a B-1 equivalent of some type. I don't think any current European air force has medium/heavy bombers any more, the best they have are all along the lines of Tornados... and... and I don't even know what else.

I think when the USAF finally retires both the B-1 and the B-52, they'll sorely be missed. It's very nice talking about precision bombing and so forth. But at the end of the day, imagine the payload of a B-1 or B-52 when coupled with the new SBD. Probably enough to wipe out a good division of tanks.

It seems that with no real enemy nowadays, evolution of military equipment has slowed significantly.

[F-ZeroOne]

The total number of flying Vulcans in the RAF is exactly zero, and has been for many years. There is soon to be one, flying example for air displays and such but thats it. All the others are either in museums or scrap metal now.

There are still a few Canberras in service...

[David Hingtgen]

Fat Albert arrived home with the casket, pics here:

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p...Params=Itemnr=1

[Nied]

First official look at Russia's PAK-FA.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

First official look at Russia's PAK-FA.

Thanks! Was wondering when that would show up. Now lets see how the XXJ would turn out.

I was hopeing for a tail layout closer to the YF-23's. For now, it looks like the butt end of a Flanker mated to the front of a 22.

[David Hingtgen]

That pic's really old and from a while ago. Here's the newer pic, still a year old. And here's an even newer conceptual drawing, comparing to the Su-47 its based on. (Apparently FSW isn't worth it) Consider Sukhoi's finances and their history of "new" planes---if you strip the canards, get new wings and stabs---but everything else is Su-47---there you go, and it seems a lot more likely/feasible. And since the Su-47 is half flanker to start with...

[kalvasflam]

That pic's really old and from a while ago. Here's the newer pic, still a year old. And here's an even newer conceptual drawing, comparing to the Su-47 its based on. (Apparently FSW isn't worth it) Consider Sukhoi's finances and their history of "new" planes---if you strip the canards, get new wings and stabs---but everything else is Su-47---there you go, and it seems a lot more likely/feasible. And since the Su-47 is half flanker to start with...

What a pity, I kind of liked the FSW. I really hoped some country would put a production version of an FSW fighter into service.

[Uxi]

HDNET Movies has been playing Top Gun alot recently so thought I would chime in here, though I'm only slightly less than scornful of the foppish flyboys and the soft Air Wingers and their climate controlled environments.

Has there ever been rumors of a sequel? If he could ditch some of his craziness, I could see Tom Cruise pulling the Viper/Tom Skerritt role pretty well. Maybe even bring back Ice in the Jester role if they could get Val Kilmer to lose a few pounds.

They could be training the next generation and use F-16's to simulate MIGs?

Edited April 27, 2007 by Uxi

[RFT]

The total number of flying Vulcans in the RAF is exactly zero, and has been for many years. There is soon to be one, flying example for air displays and such but thats it. All the others are either in museums or scrap metal now.

There are still a few Canberras in service...

I think the last 4 Canberras finally retired last year - I remeber seeing them beong offered for sale on an MOD website...

[F-ZeroOne]

Ah, so I see - although they remain servicable and awaiting possible contract work. Must Refurbish Canberras Again...

[F-ZeroOne]

First official look at Russia's PAK-FA.

Raptorski!

[David Hingtgen]

I always figured Top Gun 2 would require the F-14B/D. It'd be quick and easy to explain to the audience:

"The engines have 40% more power than the older ones". Anyone can understand and appreciate that. All the explanation they need, only 1 line in the movie. They are already familiar with the F-14, so there's no need to "re-teach" the audience which plane to root for.

Too late now!

[Warmaker]

That is kind of weird.

Iron Eagle (F-16's... sort of) had a slew of movies. But Top Gun was way better and it never had a sequel.

[Coota0]

HDNET Movies has been playing Top Gun alot recently so thought I would chime in here, though I'm only slightly less than scornful of the foppish flyboys and the soft Air Wingers and their climate controlled environments.

Has there ever been rumors of a sequel? If he could ditch some of his craziness, I could see Tom Cruise pulling the Viper/Tom Skerritt role pretty well. Maybe even bring back Ice in the Jester role if they could get Val Kilmer to lose a few pounds.

They could be training the next generation and use F-16's to simulate MIGs?

Paramount eyes straight-to-video franchises

Big name sequels coming to a small screen near you?

02 Mar 2007 5:27pm

With studios setting up straight-to-video divisions wherever there’s space in the office, it was only a matter of time before Paramount got in on the act.

Paramount’s new division will develop and make sequels, prequels and remakes of popular titles from the likes of Paramount Pictures, Paramount Vantage, DreamWorks, Nickelodeon Movies and MTV Films.

Some of the initial names bandied about for the sequel treatment include actual classics, including Grease, Top Gun, Mission: Impossible, Beverly Hills Cop, Coming To America and even Forrest Gump.

Forrest Gump 2: Gulf War Gump, anyone? No, we thought not...

Link

Found this at IMDB.com in thier TOPGUN message boards.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I always figured Top Gun 2 would require the F-14B/D. It'd be quick and easy to explain to the audience:

"The engines have 40% more power than the older ones". Anyone can understand and appreciate that. All the explanation they need, only 1 line in the movie. They are already familiar with the F-14, so there's no need to "re-teach" the audience which plane to root for.

Too late now!

*Superhornet and Tomcat shown side-by-side.* Maverick doing presentation to a group.*

Maverick points to the Rhino and says 'These new birds have 10% more power than the old Tomcat'.

But some people on the internet will get to furiously complain that the Tomcat drawing used showed an F-14B/D instead of an A model so the 10% more power quote is way off.

Anyway, I am pretty sure if they did a Top Gun 2 it will be with Raptors. I know! I know! Don't point out the flaws in this. Its HOLLYWOOD ok?

Edited April 28, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Warmaker]

Well, they did make an Iron Eagle movie where they had WWII airplanes equipped with Missiles

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Well, they did make an Iron Eagle movie where they had WWII airplanes equipped with Missiles

And they even brought Doug from part 1 back from the dead in part IV!(That movie sucked btw).

The only redemption of part IV was bringing back the main character who it turns out was imprisoned in a russian gulag, and showing the F-16 in action again.

David's idea for TopGun II would have been cool but the only thing I can see for a sequel now is just Maverick as a instructor flying an F/A-18C schooling Super Hornet pilots.

Nonetheless, I know thats probably what won't happen and knowing hollywood, they will probably bring Tom Skerrit in to play Maverick instead, and retcon Goose somehow and say he was actually in a coma. Add in some dude from the OC or Laguna Beach as the lead hotshot young pilot who needs to be schooled, oh and of course, CG some of the planes.

Yep, I have low hopes for this one

[Fit For Natalie]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but given the recent news that the US may export the Raptor to Japan and possibly Isreal, military advocates and the opposition party here are questioning why isn't Australia in line for the Raptors given our long-standing loyalty to the US.

From what I understand, the F-35 will not be capable of fulfilling the role of the F-111 it is slated to replace due to the former's lack of range and a rather steep price tag. Additionally, our F-111 fleet is to be retired in 2010, and the F-18s in 2012, but the F-35s (should we go through with them) won't be delivered until 2014 at the earliest, which would leave a gap in our airforce for a couple of years.

Naturally, the current government is dismissing any suggestions of pressuring the US to sell us Raptors, even though the F-35 would be late and very expensive, not significantly cheaper than what it would cost us to procure the Raptor (assuming we bought a shedload). As a stop-gap measure, we bought two dozen (or so) Super Hornets to plug up the gap, so to speak, until the F-35 is delivered.

What do you guys think we should do?

[Uxi]

I would pick the Aussies before anyone else but they're the most loyal nation to the US and we should reward them appropriately.